Mailing List Archive

That’s absurd…

Yes, you have to support both for now. However, you really only need IPv4 addresses on each front-end box and you only need that until the proportion of eyeball users that lack IPv6 capabilities is small enough to be considered no longer worth the cost of support.

I doubt seriously that the quantity of eyeball users you would consider cost effective to support is one. Case in point: Do your servers still support non-SNI compliant browsers? Do you limit your pages to compatibility with IE version 10?

Owen

> On Nov 25, 2019, at 11:50 , Dmitry Sherman <dmitry@interhost.net> wrote:
>
> Because we can’t only use ipv6 on the boxes, each box with ipv6 must have IPv4 until the last eyeball broadband user will have ipv6 support.
>
> Best regards,
> Dmitry Sherman
> Interhost Networks
> www.interhost.co.il
> Dmitry@interhost.net
> Mob: 054-3181182
> Sent from Steve's creature
>
>
>> On 25 Nov 2019, at 21:47, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
>>
>> ? It requires both sides to move to IPv6. Why should the cost of maintaining working networks be borne alone by the eyeball networks? That is what is mostly happening today with CGN.
>>
>> Every server that offers services to the public should be making them available over IPv6. Most of the CDNs support both transports. Why are you scared to tick the box for IPv6? HTTPS doesn’t care which transport is used.
>>
>> --
>> Mark Andrews
>>
>>> On 26 Nov 2019, at 03:53, Dmitry Sherman <dmitry@interhost.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> ? I believe it’s Eyeball network’s matter to free IPv4 blocks and move to v6.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Dmitry Sherman
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 25 Nov 2019, at 18:08, Billy Crook <BCrook@unrealservers.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ?
>>>> Huh. I guess we get to go home early today then? And look into that whole "Aye Pee Vee Sicks" thing next week aye boss?
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 8:58 AM Dmitry Sherman <dmitry@interhost.net <mailto:dmitry@interhost.net>> wrote:
>>>> Just received a mail that RIPE is out of IPv4:
>>>>
>>>> Dear colleagues,
>>>>
>>>> Today, at 15:35 UTC+1 on 25 November 2019, we made our final /22 IPv4 allocation from the last remaining addresses in our available pool. We have now run out of IPv4 addresses.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Dmitry Sherman
>>>> Interhost Networks
>>>> www.interhost.co.il <http://www.interhost.co.il/>
>>>> Dmitry@interhost.net <mailto:Dmitry@interhost.net>
>>>> Mob: 054-3181182
>>>> Sent from Steve's creature
>>>>

----- On Nov 27, 2019, at 8:03 PM, Doug Barton dougb@dougbarton.us wrote:

> I don't understand how you're using "teams" here. For the most part you
> turn it on, and end-user systems pick up the RA and do the right thing.
> If you want something fancier, you can do that with DHCP, static
> addressing, etc. In other words, this works the exact same way that IPv4
> does.

Different teams support different parts of the business. Also, most large enterprises today have been through multiple acquisitions, with different systems that are somehow merged into each other. Those that know how it works have left a long time ago, and those that don't won't touch it.

>> - Modifying old (ancient) internal code;
>
> What code? IPv4 isn't going away on the inside, so what needs to be
> modified? If you're talking monitoring software, etc., if you're still
> using software that doesn't understand IPv6, you're way overdue for an
> upgrade already.

There can be many things that need to be modified. And I'm not saying an upgrade is not long overdue, I'm saying it must make sense on the business side before the engineering side gets the go ahead to spend time and resources (and thus, cash) on it.

>> - Modifying old (ancient) database structures (think 16 character fields for IP
>> addresses);
>
> Either see above, or much more likely you'd be adding a field, not
> modifying the existing one.

Yeah, maybe yes, maybe no. That will be part of a feasibility/cost study.

>> - Upgrading/replacing load balancers and other legacy crap that only support
>> IPv4 (yeah, they still exist);
>
> If we're talking about an enterprise that is seriously still using stuff
> this old, it's more likely than not that IPv6 is the least of their
> worries. And I'm not being flippant or disrespectful here. For at least
> the last 10 years or so, and definitely in the last 5, all of the
> enterprise level network gear sold has had support for IPv6.

Let me give you one example: old APC remotely accessible powerstrips. Plenty in use today. IPv4 only.


>> Execs have bonus targets. IPv6 is not yet important enough to become part of
>> that bonus target: there is no ROI at this point.
>
> That depends heavily on what enterprise you're talking about.
>
> The point I'm trying to make is that there IS an ROI here.

You are preaching to the choir here. I have made those points many times. However, the ROI is in the distant future, and won't be easily measurable. So execs just don't prioritize; they are motivated by their own targets for the year so they get their bonuses. And let's be honest: can you blame them?

Again, I'm not saying there is no need to implement it, I'm saying that the reality is that large businesses have not prioritized it enough because it is difficult to measure the need and ROI. And that's a problem I have, unfortunately, witnessed firsthand over the course of my career at different employers.

Thanks,

Sabri

> On Nov 27, 2019, at 4:04 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
>
> ?
>
>> On 28 Nov 2019, at 06:08, Brian Knight <ml@knight-networks.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2019-11-26 17:11, Ca By wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 12:15 AM Sabri Berisha <sabri@cluecentral.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> ----- On Nov 26, 2019, at 1:36 AM, Doug Barton dougb@dougbarton.us wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>>> there is no ROI at this point. In this kind of environment there needs to
>>>> be a strong case to invest the capex to support IPv6.
>>>> IPv6 must be supported on the CxO level in order to be deployed.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Sabri, (Badum tsss) MBA
>>> I see....well let me translate it you MBA-eese for you:
>>> FANG deployed ipv6 nearly 10 years ago. Since deploying ipv6, the cohort
>>> experienced 300% CAGR. Also, everything is mobile, and all mobile providers
>>> in the usa offer ipv6 by default in most cases. Latency! Scale! As your
>>> company launches its digital transformation iot 2020 virtualization
>>> container initiatives, ipv6 will be an integral part of staying relevant on
>>> the blockchain. Also, FANG did it nearly 10 years ago. Big content and
>>> big eyeballs are on ipv6, ipv4 is a winnowing longtail of irrelevance and
>>> iot botnets.
>>
>> None of which matters a damn to almost all of my business eyeball customers. They can still get from our network to 100% of all Internet content & services via IPv4 in 2019.
>
> No you can’t. You can’t reach the machine I’m typing on via IPv4 and it is ON THE INTERNET. It is directly reachable via IPv6. Selling Internet connectivity without IPv6 should be considered fraud these days. Don’t
> you believe in “Truth in Advertising”?

I had meant to write “They can still get from our network to 100% of all Internet content and services that matter to them [our customers] via IPv4...”

0% of my IPv4-only customers have opened tickets saying they cannot reach some service that is only IPv6 accessible. So if they do care about IPv6 connectivity, they haven’t communicated that to us.

> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
>

Thanks,

-Brian

"So if they do care about IPv6 connectivity, they haven’t communicated that to us."


Nor will they, but that doesn't mean IPv6 isn't important.


Frankly, I'm surprised anti-IPv6 people still have employment.




-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com

----- Original Message -----

From: "Brian Knight" <ml@knight-networks.com>
To: "Mark Andrews" <marka@isc.org>
Cc: "nanog" <nanog@nanog.org>
Sent: Friday, November 29, 2019 10:29:17 AM
Subject: Re: RIPE our of IPv4


> On Nov 27, 2019, at 4:04 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 28 Nov 2019, at 06:08, Brian Knight <ml@knight-networks.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2019-11-26 17:11, Ca By wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 12:15 AM Sabri Berisha <sabri@cluecentral.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> ----- On Nov 26, 2019, at 1:36 AM, Doug Barton dougb@dougbarton.us wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>>> there is no ROI at this point. In this kind of environment there needs to
>>>> be a strong case to invest the capex to support IPv6.
>>>> IPv6 must be supported on the CxO level in order to be deployed.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Sabri, (Badum tsss) MBA
>>> I see....well let me translate it you MBA-eese for you:
>>> FANG deployed ipv6 nearly 10 years ago. Since deploying ipv6, the cohort
>>> experienced 300% CAGR. Also, everything is mobile, and all mobile providers
>>> in the usa offer ipv6 by default in most cases. Latency! Scale! As your
>>> company launches its digital transformation iot 2020 virtualization
>>> container initiatives, ipv6 will be an integral part of staying relevant on
>>> the blockchain. Also, FANG did it nearly 10 years ago. Big content and
>>> big eyeballs are on ipv6, ipv4 is a winnowing longtail of irrelevance and
>>> iot botnets.
>>
>> None of which matters a damn to almost all of my business eyeball customers. They can still get from our network to 100% of all Internet content & services via IPv4 in 2019.
>
> No you can’t. You can’t reach the machine I’m typing on via IPv4 and it is ON THE INTERNET. It is directly reachable via IPv6. Selling Internet connectivity without IPv6 should be considered fraud these days. Don’t
> you believe in “Truth in Advertising”?

I had meant to write “They can still get from our network to 100% of all Internet content and services that matter to them [our customers] via IPv4...”

0% of my IPv4-only customers have opened tickets saying they cannot reach some service that is only IPv6 accessible. So if they do care about IPv6 connectivity, they haven’t communicated that to us.

> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
>

Thanks,

-Brian

On 11/29/19 11:29 AM, Brian Knight wrote:
> 0% of my IPv4-only customers have opened tickets saying they cannot reach some service that is only IPv6 accessible. So if they do care about IPv6 connectivity, they haven’t communicated that to us.

I help admin a very small (<1k subs, but growing) municipal ISP. We
have had a couple requests from residential subscribers for IPv6 which
is not yet enabled due to lack of support for a nice, but not strictly
required, feature from one vendor in our stack (and they have opened a
feature request and promised support in the next release - we'll see if
they deliver). If a SP with <1k subs has ANY registered interest, I'd
say a non-trivial SP is going to have some even if it's not being
communicated.

Certainly, to me, if I have a choice of service providers, and one
offers native IPv6 (or even well-supported 6rd) while the other offers
no IPv6 and has no plans or is even downright IPv6-hostile (e.g. mucking
with protocol 41), that's certainly going to factor into my decision.
This is a pre-sales issue which, on standard consumer services, is
unlikely to ever be communicated to the provider. However, I'll admit
that I'm not a normal customer.

Interestingly, albeit somewhat unsurprisingly, interest from enterprises
on DIA services (where the aforementioned feature is irrelevant) has
been not just nonexistent but outright hostile. Every one of them has
asked to have it explicitly disabled when prompted. Enterprise is
definitely the lagging factor, here. I suspect it's at least partially
because high-ratio NAT44 has been the norm for enterprise deployments
for some time, and, among those who might otherwise be willing to
support first-class dual stack, many enterprise IT folks lack the
education to recognize the nuance between public addressing and
unfiltered public reachability of a given host. I suspect many of them
are already using IPv6 for LAN traffic without even realizing it given
Windows' penchant for doing so since Vista.

--
Brandon Martin

On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 23:26:04 -0500, Brandon Martin said:

> definitely the lagging factor, here. I suspect it's at least partially
> because high-ratio NAT44 has been the norm for enterprise deployments
> for some time, and, among those who might otherwise be willing to
> support first-class dual stack, many enterprise IT folks lack the
> education to recognize the nuance between public addressing and
> unfiltered public reachability of a given host. I suspect many of them
> are already using IPv6 for LAN traffic without even realizing it given
> Windows' penchant for doing so since Vista.

Judging how long it took to (mostly) stamp out CLASSA/B/C nonsense,
we're in for at least a decade of IPv6 firewalls that block all ICMP, plus
whatever common IPv6 misconfigurations and misconceptions are
out there (I was deploying this stuff literally last century, so I admit
not knowing what people are screwing up currently).

>> On Nov 29, 2019, at 5:28 PM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
> ?
> "So if they do care about IPv6 connectivity, they haven’t communicated that to us."
>
> Nor will they, but that doesn't mean IPv6 isn't important.

Personally, I don’t disagree. We engineers do what we can to support IPv6: We build it into our tooling and switch it on in our gear. Our network is dual stack v4/v6 and has been for quite a while. But with other tools we don’t control, and particularly in terms of business process, we have a ways to go, and it’s not a priority.

I want IPv6 to succeed, really. But the global end game picture looks more and more bleak to me.

>
> Frankly, I'm surprised anti-IPv6 people still have employment.
>
>
>
> -----
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com

-Brian

>
> From: "Brian Knight" <ml@knight-networks.com>
> To: "Mark Andrews" <marka@isc.org>
> Cc: "nanog" <nanog@nanog.org>
> Sent: Friday, November 29, 2019 10:29:17 AM
> Subject: Re: RIPE our of IPv4
>
>
> > On Nov 27, 2019, at 4:04 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
> >
> > ?
> >
> >> On 28 Nov 2019, at 06:08, Brian Knight <ml@knight-networks.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2019-11-26 17:11, Ca By wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 12:15 AM Sabri Berisha <sabri@cluecentral.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> ----- On Nov 26, 2019, at 1:36 AM, Doug Barton dougb@dougbarton.us wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>>> there is no ROI at this point. In this kind of environment there needs to
> >>>> be a strong case to invest the capex to support IPv6.
> >>>> IPv6 must be supported on the CxO level in order to be deployed.
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Sabri, (Badum tsss) MBA
> >>> I see....well let me translate it you MBA-eese for you:
> >>> FANG deployed ipv6 nearly 10 years ago. Since deploying ipv6, the cohort
> >>> experienced 300% CAGR. Also, everything is mobile, and all mobile providers
> >>> in the usa offer ipv6 by default in most cases. Latency! Scale! As your
> >>> company launches its digital transformation iot 2020 virtualization
> >>> container initiatives, ipv6 will be an integral part of staying relevant on
> >>> the blockchain. Also, FANG did it nearly 10 years ago. Big content and
> >>> big eyeballs are on ipv6, ipv4 is a winnowing longtail of irrelevance and
> >>> iot botnets.
> >>
> >> None of which matters a damn to almost all of my business eyeball customers. They can still get from our network to 100% of all Internet content & services via IPv4 in 2019.
> >
> > No you can’t. You can’t reach the machine I’m typing on via IPv4 and it is ON THE INTERNET. It is directly reachable via IPv6. Selling Internet connectivity without IPv6 should be considered fraud these days. Don’t
> > you believe in “Truth in Advertising”?
>
> I had meant to write “They can still get from our network to 100% of all Internet content and services that matter to them [our customers] via IPv4...”
>
> 0% of my IPv4-only customers have opened tickets saying they cannot reach some service that is only IPv6 accessible. So if they do care about IPv6 connectivity, they haven’t communicated that to us.
>
> > Mark Andrews, ISC
> > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
> >
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Brian

On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 8:06 AM Brian Knight <ml@knight-networks.com> wrote:

>
> On Nov 29, 2019, at 5:28 PM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
>
> ?
> "So if they do care about IPv6 connectivity, they haven’t communicated
> that to us."
>
> Nor will they, but that doesn't mean IPv6 isn't important.
>
>
> Personally, I don’t disagree. We engineers do what we can to support IPv6:
> We build it into our tooling and switch it on in our gear. Our network is
> dual stack v4/v6 and has been for quite a while. But with other tools we
> don’t control, and particularly in terms of business process, we have a
> ways to go, and it’s not a priority.
>
> I want IPv6 to succeed, really. But the global end game picture looks
> more and more bleak to me.
>

I can see how your situation is bleak

That said, google see nearly 40% of their traffic on ipv6 in the usa ,
growth trend looks strong

https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html

And

Comcast (71%), Charter (52%), VZ (85%), ATT (60 and 78%) , and T-Mobile
(95%) have the majority of their subs on ipv6

https://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/


Sadly, ipv6 is creating a bifurcation of the internet. Scale shops have
v6, and non-scale shops don’t. The big players are pulling away, and that
makes things bleak for the folks just trying to tread water in ipv4.


>
> Frankly, I'm surprised anti-IPv6 people still have employment.
>
>
>
>
> -----
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
>
> -Brian
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From: *"Brian Knight" <ml@knight-networks.com>
> *To: *"Mark Andrews" <marka@isc.org>
> *Cc: *"nanog" <nanog@nanog.org>
> *Sent: *Friday, November 29, 2019 10:29:17 AM
> *Subject: *Re: RIPE our of IPv4
>
>
> > On Nov 27, 2019, at 4:04 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
> >
> > ?
> >
> >> On 28 Nov 2019, at 06:08, Brian Knight <ml@knight-networks.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2019-11-26 17:11, Ca By wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 12:15 AM Sabri Berisha <sabri@cluecentral.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> ----- On Nov 26, 2019, at 1:36 AM, Doug Barton dougb@dougbarton.us
> wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>>> there is no ROI at this point. In this kind of environment there
> needs to
> >>>> be a strong case to invest the capex to support IPv6.
> >>>> IPv6 must be supported on the CxO level in order to be deployed.
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Sabri, (Badum tsss) MBA
> >>> I see....well let me translate it you MBA-eese for you:
> >>> FANG deployed ipv6 nearly 10 years ago. Since deploying ipv6, the
> cohort
> >>> experienced 300% CAGR. Also, everything is mobile, and all mobile
> providers
> >>> in the usa offer ipv6 by default in most cases. Latency! Scale! As your
> >>> company launches its digital transformation iot 2020 virtualization
> >>> container initiatives, ipv6 will be an integral part of staying
> relevant on
> >>> the blockchain. Also, FANG did it nearly 10 years ago. Big content
> and
> >>> big eyeballs are on ipv6, ipv4 is a winnowing longtail of irrelevance
> and
> >>> iot botnets.
> >>
> >> None of which matters a damn to almost all of my business eyeball
> customers. They can still get from our network to 100% of all Internet
> content & services via IPv4 in 2019.
> >
> > No you can’t. You can’t reach the machine I’m typing on via IPv4 and it
> is ON THE INTERNET. It is directly reachable via IPv6. Selling Internet
> connectivity without IPv6 should be considered fraud these days. Don’t
> > you believe in “Truth in Advertising”?
>
> I had meant to write “They can still get from our network to 100% of all
> Internet content and services that matter to them [our customers] via
> IPv4...”
>
> 0% of my IPv4-only customers have opened tickets saying they cannot reach
> some service that is only IPv6 accessible. So if they do care about IPv6
> connectivity, they haven’t communicated that to us.
>
> > Mark Andrews, ISC
> > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/1+Seymour+St.,+Dundas+Valley,+NSW?entry=gmail&source=g>
> 2117, Australia
> > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
> >
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Brian
>
>

I administer two networks that use legacy IPv4 blocks (one also uses an
allocation from the 44 net)

Both could have IPv6 if it was free, but neither organization has the funds
to waste on a paid IPv6 allocation.

We should have given every legacy block matching free IPv6 space, because
early adopters are still sometimes early adopters.

But you’re right, what could have been supported on a volunteer basis is
now a profit center. Especially for IPv6, which is once-and-done if sized
properly.

Matthew Kaufman

On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 2:29 PM <bzs@theworld.com> wrote:

>
> If the commitment really was to spread IPv6 far and wide IPv6 blocks
> would be handed out for free, one per qualified customer (e.g., if you
> have an IPv4 allocation you get one IPv6 block free), or perhaps some
> trivial administrative fee like $10 per year.
>
> But the RIRs can't live on that.
>
> We have put them under the management of a group of five organizations
> which are very dependent on the income from block allocations and no
> doubt were hoping IPv6 allocations would be a boon since there will be
> very little if any income growth from future IPv4 block allocations.
>
> Worse, once acquired an IPv6 block has so many billions of addresses
> very few if any would ever need another allocation so it would hardly
> act as a loss leader.
>
> I realize many still would not deploy IPv6 for various reasons such as
> their equipment doesn't support it or they don't have the in-house
> expertise to support it, etc tho I can't think of much other etc, a
> few points of resistance do come up.
>
> --
> -Barry Shein
>
> Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com |
> http://www.TheWorld.com
> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD
> The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
>

This is a great example (but just one of many) of how server software
development works:

IANA IPv4 runout January 2011.

Kubernetes initial release June 2014. Developed by Google engineers.

ARIN IPv4 runout September 2015.

Support for IPv6-only Kubernetes clusters alphas in 1.9, December 2017.

Full support including CoreDNS support in 1.13, December 2018.

Too bad nobody had warned them about IPv4 exhaustion before they started!

On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 8:02 AM Andy Ringsmuth <andy@andyring.com> wrote:

>
>
> > On Nov 25, 2019, at 8:56 AM, Dmitry Sherman <dmitry@interhost.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > Just received a mail that RIPE is out of IPv4:
> >
> > Dear colleagues,
> >
> > Today, at 15:35 UTC+1 on 25 November 2019, we made our final /22 IPv4
> allocation from the last remaining addresses in our available pool. We have
> now run out of IPv4 addresses.
>
> Does this mean we are finally ripe for widespread IPv6 adoption?
>
> (Admit it, someone had to say it!)
>
> ----
> Andy Ringsmuth
> 5609 Harding Drive
> Lincoln, NE 68521-5831
> (402) 304-0083
> andy@andyring.com

On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 11:46 AM Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> That said, google see nearly 40% of their traffic on ipv6 in the usa ,
> growth trend looks strong
>
> https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
>
> And
>
> Comcast (71%), Charter (52%), VZ (85%), ATT (60 and 78%) , and T-Mobile
> (95%) have the majority of their subs on ipv6
>
> https://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/
>

Verizon is an interesting case. While IPv6 penetration on the wireless
side is very high, the same is not true on the Fios/DSL side. IPv6
deployment there is nearly nonexistent.
I've heard rumblings that some early Fios users will need to have their
ONTs replaced to be able to get v6, regardless if the router itself
supports it. I don't know if this is true, because I've never been able to
get a straight/authoritative answer from Verizon.

While a tunnel from HE works perfectly well, it would be nice to have
native v6 from VZ.

jms


> Sadly, ipv6 is creating a bifurcation of the internet. Scale shops have
> v6, and non-scale shops don’t. The big players are pulling away, and that
> makes things bleak for the folks just trying to tread water in ipv4.
>
>
>>
>> Frankly, I'm surprised anti-IPv6 people still have employment.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>> Midwest-IX
>> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>>
>>
>> -Brian
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From: *"Brian Knight" <ml@knight-networks.com>
>> *To: *"Mark Andrews" <marka@isc.org>
>> *Cc: *"nanog" <nanog@nanog.org>
>> *Sent: *Friday, November 29, 2019 10:29:17 AM
>> *Subject: *Re: RIPE our of IPv4
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 27, 2019, at 4:04 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > ?
>> >
>> >> On 28 Nov 2019, at 06:08, Brian Knight <ml@knight-networks.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On 2019-11-26 17:11, Ca By wrote:
>> >>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 12:15 AM Sabri Berisha <sabri@cluecentral.net
>> >
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>> ----- On Nov 26, 2019, at 1:36 AM, Doug Barton dougb@dougbarton.us
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> [snip]
>> >>>> there is no ROI at this point. In this kind of environment there
>> needs to
>> >>>> be a strong case to invest the capex to support IPv6.
>> >>>> IPv6 must be supported on the CxO level in order to be deployed.
>> >>>> Thanks,
>> >>>> Sabri, (Badum tsss) MBA
>> >>> I see....well let me translate it you MBA-eese for you:
>> >>> FANG deployed ipv6 nearly 10 years ago. Since deploying ipv6, the
>> cohort
>> >>> experienced 300% CAGR. Also, everything is mobile, and all mobile
>> providers
>> >>> in the usa offer ipv6 by default in most cases. Latency! Scale! As
>> your
>> >>> company launches its digital transformation iot 2020 virtualization
>> >>> container initiatives, ipv6 will be an integral part of staying
>> relevant on
>> >>> the blockchain. Also, FANG did it nearly 10 years ago. Big content
>> and
>> >>> big eyeballs are on ipv6, ipv4 is a winnowing longtail of irrelevance
>> and
>> >>> iot botnets.
>> >>
>> >> None of which matters a damn to almost all of my business eyeball
>> customers. They can still get from our network to 100% of all Internet
>> content & services via IPv4 in 2019.
>> >
>> > No you can’t. You can’t reach the machine I’m typing on via IPv4 and
>> it is ON THE INTERNET. It is directly reachable via IPv6. Selling
>> Internet connectivity without IPv6 should be considered fraud these days.
>> Don’t
>> > you believe in “Truth in Advertising”?
>>
>> I had meant to write “They can still get from our network to 100% of all
>> Internet content and services that matter to them [our customers] via
>> IPv4...”
>>
>> 0% of my IPv4-only customers have opened tickets saying they cannot reach
>> some service that is only IPv6 accessible. So if they do care about IPv6
>> connectivity, they haven’t communicated that to us.
>>
>> > Mark Andrews, ISC
>> > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW
>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/1+Seymour+St.,+Dundas+Valley,+NSW?entry=gmail&source=g>
>> 2117, Australia
>> > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
>> >
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -Brian
>>
>>

On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 9:21 AM Justin Streiner <streinerj@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> While a tunnel from HE works perfectly well, it would be nice to have
> native v6 from VZ.
>

Worked perfectly well. Until Netflix blocked all known tunnel providers.
Then my users demanded I turn IPv6 off... so I did. Won’t come back until
both my up streams properly support it.

Matthew Kaufman

>
>

You can announce your own IPv6 subnets through TunnelBroker.

Filip

On 30 November 2019 8:37:33 pm GMT+01:00, Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> wrote:
>On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 9:21 AM Justin Streiner <streinerj@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> While a tunnel from HE works perfectly well, it would be nice to have
>> native v6 from VZ.
>>
>
>Worked perfectly well. Until Netflix blocked all known tunnel
>providers.
>Then my users demanded I turn IPv6 off... so I did. Won’t come back
>until
>both my up streams properly support it.
>
>Matthew Kaufman
>
>>
>>

--
Sent from my mobile device. Please excuse my brevity.

And how did that stop you deploying IPv6? It’s not like you were turning off IPv4.
--
Mark Andrews

> On 1 Dec 2019, at 04:03, Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> wrote:
>
> ?
> This is a great example (but just one of many) of how server software development works:
>
> IANA IPv4 runout January 2011.
>
> Kubernetes initial release June 2014. Developed by Google engineers.
>
> ARIN IPv4 runout September 2015.
>
> Support for IPv6-only Kubernetes clusters alphas in 1.9, December 2017.
>
> Full support including CoreDNS support in 1.13, December 2018.
>
> Too bad nobody had warned them about IPv4 exhaustion before they started!
>
>> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 8:02 AM Andy Ringsmuth <andy@andyring.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 25, 2019, at 8:56 AM, Dmitry Sherman <dmitry@interhost.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > Just received a mail that RIPE is out of IPv4:
>> >
>> > Dear colleagues,
>> >
>> > Today, at 15:35 UTC+1 on 25 November 2019, we made our final /22 IPv4 allocation from the last remaining addresses in our available pool. We have now run out of IPv4 addresses.
>>
>> Does this mean we are finally ripe for widespread IPv6 adoption?
>>
>> (Admit it, someone had to say it!)
>>
>> ----
>> Andy Ringsmuth
>> 5609 Harding Drive
>> Lincoln, NE 68521-5831
>> (402) 304-0083
>> andy@andyring.com

User apps prefer IPv6, Netflix stops, users complain

On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 1:29 PM Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:

> And how did that stop you deploying IPv6? It’s not like you were turning
> off IPv4.
> --
> Mark Andrews
>
> On 1 Dec 2019, at 04:03, Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> wrote:
>
> ?
> This is a great example (but just one of many) of how server software
> development works:
>
> IANA IPv4 runout January 2011.
>
> Kubernetes initial release June 2014. Developed by Google engineers.
>
> ARIN IPv4 runout September 2015.
>
> Support for IPv6-only Kubernetes clusters alphas in 1.9, December 2017.
>
> Full support including CoreDNS support in 1.13, December 2018.
>
> Too bad nobody had warned them about IPv4 exhaustion before they started!
>
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 8:02 AM Andy Ringsmuth <andy@andyring.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 25, 2019, at 8:56 AM, Dmitry Sherman <dmitry@interhost.net>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Just received a mail that RIPE is out of IPv4:
>> >
>> > Dear colleagues,
>> >
>> > Today, at 15:35 UTC+1 on 25 November 2019, we made our final /22 IPv4
>> allocation from the last remaining addresses in our available pool. We have
>> now run out of IPv4 addresses.
>>
>> Does this mean we are finally ripe for widespread IPv6 adoption?
>>
>> (Admit it, someone had to say it!)
>>
>> ----
>> Andy Ringsmuth
>> 5609 Harding Drive
>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/5609+Harding+Drive+%0D%0ALincoln,+NE+68521?entry=gmail&source=g>
>> Lincoln, NE 68521
>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/5609+Harding+Drive+%0D%0ALincoln,+NE+68521?entry=gmail&source=g>
>> -5831
>> (402) 304-0083
>> andy@andyring.com
>
>

See previous message about legacy IPv4 holders without budget for IPv6
blocks

On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 12:15 PM Filip Hruska <fhr@fhrnet.eu> wrote:

> You can announce your own IPv6 subnets through TunnelBroker.
>
> Filip
>
>
> On 30 November 2019 8:37:33 pm GMT+01:00, Matthew Kaufman <
> matthew@matthew.at> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 9:21 AM Justin Streiner <streinerj@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> While a tunnel from HE works perfectly well, it would be nice to have
>>> native v6 from VZ.
>>>
>>
>> Worked perfectly well. Until Netflix blocked all known tunnel providers.
>> Then my users demanded I turn IPv6 off... so I did. Won’t come back until
>> both my up streams properly support it.
>>
>> Matthew Kaufman
>>
>>>
>>>
> --
> Sent from my mobile device. Please excuse my brevity.
>

Sorry, thought this was the Tunnels part of the thread.

Kubernetes Container networking only supported one address per pod until
well *after* V6-only clusters were in alpha, so dual-stack want an option.

Point is, plenty of popular server-side infrastructure was designed
IPv4-first as late as 2014. This is just one example of many.

Matthew Kaufman


On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 1:29 PM Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:

> And how did that stop you deploying IPv6? It’s not like you were turning
> off IPv4.
> --
> Mark Andrews
>
> On 1 Dec 2019, at 04:03, Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> wrote:
>
> ?
> This is a great example (but just one of many) of how server software
> development works:
>
> IANA IPv4 runout January 2011.
>
> Kubernetes initial release June 2014. Developed by Google engineers.
>
> ARIN IPv4 runout September 2015.
>
> Support for IPv6-only Kubernetes clusters alphas in 1.9, December 2017.
>
> Full support including CoreDNS support in 1.13, December 2018.
>
> Too bad nobody had warned them about IPv4 exhaustion before they started!
>
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 8:02 AM Andy Ringsmuth <andy@andyring.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 25, 2019, at 8:56 AM, Dmitry Sherman <dmitry@interhost.net>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Just received a mail that RIPE is out of IPv4:
>> >
>> > Dear colleagues,
>> >
>> > Today, at 15:35 UTC+1 on 25 November 2019, we made our final /22 IPv4
>> allocation from the last remaining addresses in our available pool. We have
>> now run out of IPv4 addresses.
>>
>> Does this mean we are finally ripe for widespread IPv6 adoption?
>>
>> (Admit it, someone had to say it!)
>>
>> ----
>> Andy Ringsmuth
>> 5609 Harding Drive
>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/5609+Harding+Drive+%0D%0ALincoln,+NE+68521?entry=gmail&source=g>
>> Lincoln, NE 68521
>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/5609+Harding+Drive+%0D%0ALincoln,+NE+68521?entry=gmail&source=g>
>> -5831
>> (402) 304-0083
>> andy@andyring.com
>
>

On 11/30/19 4:48 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> See previous message about legacy IPv4 holders without budget for IPv6 blocks 

How slim are your margins to have been around long enough to have a legacy IPv4 block but not be able to afford the ARIN fees to get a comparable/very usable (/48 to /52 for each IPv4) amount of IPv6? And if you don't need a "comparable" amount of IPv6, presumably you aren't using all your legacy IPv4 and can sell off part of its presumably huge allocation to get some funds.
--
Brandon Martin

On 11/30/19 12:18 PM, Justin Streiner wrote:
> Verizon is an interesting case.  While IPv6 penetration on the wireless side is very high, the same is not true on the Fios/DSL side.  IPv6 deployment there is nearly nonexistent.
> I've heard rumblings that some early Fios users will need to have their ONTs replaced to be able to get v6, regardless if the router itself supports it.  I don't know if this is true, because I've never been able to get a straight/authoritative answer from Verizon.

Does Verizon still own/manage ANY of their Fios territories? I thought it was all sold off to Frontier at this point. It certainly all is, along with all their legacy LEC territories not having FTTx and having some form of DSL, around here. The latter DSL offerings are usually pretty hilarious. It's mostly run out of the CO or existing RTUs from the POTS era. I can't imagine they have a ton of subscribers outside of areas with literally no other wireline options, and I'm guessing a lot of that infrastructure hasn't been touched in a decade-plus.

Is Frontier-managed Fios included in those numbers regardless, or are they separate like I'd expect them to be?
--
Brandon Martin

On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 4:57 PM Brandon Martin <lists.nanog@monmotha.net>
wrote:

> On 11/30/19 4:48 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> > See previous message about legacy IPv4 holders without budget for IPv6
> blocks
>
> How slim are your margins to have been around long enough to have a legacy
> IPv4 block but not be able to afford the ARIN fees to get a comparable/very
> usable (/48 to /52 for each IPv4) amount of IPv6? And if you don't need a
> "comparable" amount of IPv6, presumably you aren't using all your legacy
> IPv4 and can sell off part of its presumably huge allocation to get some
> funds.
> --
>

Nonprofit that acts as an ISP with a budget of a few thousand a year,
smallest allocation to an ISP would be $500/yr in fees, a substantial
fraction of budget.

>
>

On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 13:47:36 -0800, Matthew Kaufman said:

> User apps prefer IPv6, Netflix stops, users complain

And fallback to IPv4 fails to happen, why, exactly?

On 11/30/19 8:55 PM, Valdis Kl?tnieks wrote:
>> User apps prefer IPv6, Netflix stops, users complain
> And fallback to IPv4 fails to happen, why, exactly?

Inability to signal application-level failure on IPv6 and that fallback to IPv4 would succeed.

Netflix definitely exhibits this. I've also noticed that a lot of Cloudflare-hosted apps/sites block AS6939 outright which mostly only affects IPv6 as they don't actually originate much end-user-facing IPv4 space. The result is an HTTP/403 which most browsers do not interpret as a response that could be remedied by "happy eyeballs" type behavior. Whether banning an entire ASN like that in precisely a situation where this kind of thing is likely to occur is a good practice or not is left as an exercise to the reader.
--
Brandon Martin

On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 5:55 PM Valdis Kl?tnieks <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu>
wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 13:47:36 -0800, Matthew Kaufman said:
>
> > User apps prefer IPv6, Netflix stops, users complain
>
> And fallback to IPv4 fails to happen, why, exactly?
>
Because of the layer at which failure happens. You get connected
successfully to a Netflix that tells you that reaching it via tunnels is
prohibited by their terms of service.

I'm still surprised that for $42/mo you can't afford IPv6. If you already have a legacy allocation most cases you can get v6 for "free".

I get low budget stuff, but honestly it doesn't have to be you it could be one upstream that gives you a /48 to get you started.

Sent from my iCar

> On Dec 1, 2019, at 1:10 AM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> wrote:
>
> ?
>
>
>> On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 5:55 PM Valdis Kl?tnieks <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 13:47:36 -0800, Matthew Kaufman said:
>>
>> > User apps prefer IPv6, Netflix stops, users complain
>>
>> And fallback to IPv4 fails to happen, why, exactly?
>
> Because of the layer at which failure happens. You get connected successfully to a Netflix that tells you that reaching it via tunnels is prohibited by their terms of service.
>

Matthew Kaufman writes:
> This is a great example (but just one of many) of how server software
> development works:

Small addition/correction to this example
(which I find interesting and also sad):

> Kubernetes initial release June 2014. Developed by Google engineers.
[...]
> Full support including CoreDNS support in 1.13, December 2018.

Support for dual-stack pods[1]: alpha in 1.16, October 2019.
--
Simon.
[1] https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/services-networking/dual-stack/