Re: Hotels/Airports with IPv6

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

> On Jul 10, 2015, at 22:34 , Mel Beckman <mel () beckman org> wrote:
>
> Owen,
>
> I never said it was a greenfield deployment. Someone else tagged it with that term. 
>
> My understanding of the term "greenfield" WRT wifi is that there are no interfering signals to contend with. I don't 
> know of any U.S. airport that meets that definition. First you have all the wifi of concessionaires, the airlines'  
> passenger clubs and operations, and service organizations for food, fuel, and FAA. You can't control those users, 
> thanks to the FAA's recent decisions restricting wifi regulation to itself. 

I suppose if you’re going to use that definition, there’s no such thing.

However, as a general rule when I talk about a greenfield deployment of a network (of any form), I, and I suspect most 
people, are referring to a network that is not yet saddled with any legacy deployment issues. E.g. a building that has 
not yet been designed. A situation where you can start from scratch with a fresh design and specify everything from the 
ground up, at least in terms of the major design factors in the network.

> Acceptance testing is straightforward once it's been designed and scripted. You bring in a wifi traffic generator 
> (from a professional test services company) that can simulate 1000 or more wifi clients to impose a known traffic 
> load on the network. You then use sample passenger devices of each type -- smartphone, tablet, and laptop -- as well 
> as various popular OS's to run pre-engineered regression test scripts, recording performance via a wifi sniffer. The 
> sniffer capture then goes through offline analysis to compare actual throughout and response times with the original 
> design metrics. You do this for selected sub areas having typical characteristics, such as a gate, security queue, 
> baggage or dining area, at a time when it's empty. 
>
> The testing process takes a day or two per airport terminal. Yes, the acceptance test needs to be revised and 
> repeated for deploying IPv6. That is a small cost compared to the already-expended months of deployment planning and 
> rollout. The incremental IPv6 acceptance test cost is in the noise, dwarfed even by the price of conduit.

Right, but if you’re starting fresh with a new design, why not design IPv6 in from the start? There’s really no 
incremental cost to doing so and your long-term savings can be substantial.

> I do agree that there are potential performance gains with IPv6, through avoiding NAT. But those benefits will still 
> be there in a year or two, and will be much larger then than they are today. Moreover, the user population is not 
> growing rapidly, and can easily fit into simple NAT with the airport's existing IPv4 space. 

Let me guess… You’re still running on a computer with 640k of RAM.

Owen

> -mel 
>
> > On Jul 10, 2015, at 9:55 PM, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:
> >
> > How can it be a large, complex deployment if it’s greenfield.
> >
> > In that case, you need to acceptance test the IPv4 just as much as IPv6.
> >
> > The difference is that you don’t have to rerun your acceptance tests 6-months later when you have to implement IPv6 
> > in a rush because you suddenly learned that your major client gets major suckage on IPv4 due to their provider 
> > having put them behind the worst CGN on the planet.
> >
> > Owen
> >
> > > On Jul 10, 2015, at 15:08 , Mel Beckman <mel () beckman org> wrote:
> > >
> > > There is most certainly a cost to IPv6, especially in a large, complex deployment, where everything requires 
> > > acceptance testing. And I'm sure you realize that IPv6 only is not an option.  I agree that it would have been 
> > > worth the cost, which would have been just a small fraction of the total. The powers that be chose not to incur it 
> > > now. But we did deploy only IPv6 gear and systems, so it can probably be turned up later for that same incremental 
> > > cost. 
> > >
> > > -mel via cell
> > >
> > > > On Jul 10, 2015, at 3:03 PM, Mark Andrews <marka () isc org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In message <A24F7CF2-0CD8-4EBA-A211-07BC36988A87 () beckman org>, Mel Beckman writ
> > > > es:
> > > > > Limited municipal budgets is all I can say. IPv6 has a cost, and if they
> > > > > can put it off till later then that's often good politics.
> > > > >
> > > > > -mel via cell
> > > >
> > > > IPv4 has a cost as well.  May as well just go IPv6-only from day one and
> > > > not pay the IPv4 tax at all.
> > > >
> > > > The cost difference between providing IPv6 + IPv4 or just IPv4 from
> > > > day 1 should be zero.  There should be no re-tooling.  You just
> > > > select products that support both initially.  It's not like products
> > > > that support both are more expensive all other things being equal.
> > > >
> > > > Mark
> > > >
> > > > > > On Jul 10, 2015, at 2:42 PM, Mark Andrews <marka () isc org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In message
> > > > > <CAL9jLabA5nO6YQ99CRhDgRTHTSB0VgP3GDNeu-VU2-4R_1_pLQ () mail gmail com>
> > > > > > , Christopher Morrow writes:
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Mel Beckman <mel () beckman org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > I working on a large airport WiFi deployment right now. IPv6 is
> > > > > "allowed =
> > > > > > > for in the future" but not configured in the short term. With less
> > > > > than 10,=
> > > > > > > 000 ephemeral users, we don't expect users to demand IPv6 until most
> > > > > mobile=
> > > > > > > devices and apps come ready to use IPv6 by default.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 'we don't expect users to demand ipv6'
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > aside from #nanog folks, who 'demands' ipv6?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Don't they actually 'demand' "access to content on the internet" ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Since you seem to have a greenfield deployment, why NOT just put v6 in
> > > > > > > place on day0? retrofitting it is surely going to cost time/materials
> > > > > > > and probably upgrades to gear that could be avoided by doing it in the
> > > > > > > initial installation, right?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +1 and you will most probably see about 50% of the traffic being IPv6 if
> > > > > > you do so.  There is lots of IPv6 capable equipment out there just
> > > > > waiting
> > > > > > to see a RA.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mark
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Mark Andrews, ISC
> > > > > > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> > > > > > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka () isc org
> > > >
> > > > -- 
> > > > Mark Andrews, ISC
> > > > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> > > > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka () isc org