Mailing List Archive

Hello,

Le 11 févr. 2015 à 21:42, Anfinsen, Ragnar a écrit :

> Hi guys.
>
> I am working with my management team to implement IPv6, but I got an
> interesting question from one of the managers; Why do we need more IPv4 if
> we are moving towards IPv6?
>
> A quick background; We are having discussions around IPv4 and IPv6 and the
> need to eventually buy more IPv4 addresses to keep a premium level on our
> Internet access.
>
> My argument is that we need addresses as long as there are important
> services that only do IPv4 (yes, there are still a few, especially in
> Norway), and as long as the other ISP are reluctant to implement IPv6
> (luckily in Norway, all the major ISPs have already come a long way). When
> IPv6 reaches critical mass is the $5000 dollar question which I wish I had
> the answer for.
>
> So, any thoughts on this topic, and any qualified guesses on when we no
> longer need to do IPv4 and still be able to call our internet product
> premium?

Actually it depends on whether you are on the content or ISP side. But both showed a benefit.
* On content side, there is an example of a french hosting company named Gandi who rents its VMs with an IPv6-only option. Benefit for the hoster : less IPv4 to find out, benefit for the client : a cheeper VM.
* On ISP side, you can think about 464XLAT deployments where users may have an unfiltered IPv6 but a kind of CGN on IPv4. Benefit for the ISP : less traffic through the CGN (i never seen studies on this point but it would be really interesting), benefit for the customer : a reliable access to its favorite websites (Google, Youtube, Facebook) without the CGN factory.
* On big infrastructures, you can also think about having your servers addressed IPv6-only and put an IPv4 only on your load-balancers

Anyway, i think you can find a way to show a benefit according to your case.

Best regards
Emmanuel Thierry

On Wednesday, February 11, 2015, Anfinsen, Ragnar <
Ragnar.Anfinsen@altibox.no> wrote:

> Hi guys.
>
> I am working with my management team to implement IPv6, but I got an
> interesting question from one of the managers; Why do we need more IPv4 if
> we are moving towards IPv6?
>
> A quick background; We are having discussions around IPv4 and IPv6 and the
> need to eventually buy more IPv4 addresses to keep a premium level on our
> Internet access.
>
> My argument is that we need addresses as long as there are important
> services that only do IPv4 (yes, there are still a few, especially in
> Norway), and as long as the other ISP are reluctant to implement IPv6
> (luckily in Norway, all the major ISPs have already come a long way). When
> IPv6 reaches critical mass is the $5000 dollar question which I wish I had
> the answer for.
>
> So, any thoughts on this topic, and any qualified guesses on when we no
> longer need to do IPv4 and still be able to call our internet product
> premium?
>
>

I always cringe when folks say premium internet. Internet is always "best
effort", we are all always reduced to the least common denominator for
network quality.

I would say networks that only have ipv4 are not doing their best effort.
There will not be suitable truly ipv6-only offering in the next 10 Years
because of these laggards.

That said, buying ipv4 makes me feel ill. Please put ipv4 where it belong
in the cgn / nat64 / MAP br / aftr.

Ipv4 is not premium, it is legacy services deployed by companies on a
downward slide. . My customers care about fb and google and netflix, those
are top services and all on ipv6

CB


> /Ragnar
> Altibox AS
>

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 08:42:00PM +0000, Anfinsen, Ragnar wrote:
> I am working with my management team to implement IPv6, but I got an
> interesting question from one of the managers; Why do we need more IPv4 if
> we are moving towards IPv6?

Maybe because the move is going too slowly?

Case in point: http://goo.gl/q4EGQ3 shows disappointingly little Altibox,
even though you've been talking about IPv6 for the last five years, at least.
Maybe it's time to stop going opt-in :-)

/* Steinar */
--
Software Engineer, Google Switzerland

On Wed, 11 Feb 2015, Anfinsen, Ragnar wrote:

> So, any thoughts on this topic, and any qualified guesses on when we no
> longer need to do IPv4 and still be able to call our internet product
> premium?

Depends. Are you selling Internet access for data center hosting, for
business or for residential or for some other customer base?

If you want to support "power users" with your "premium product", then I'd
imagine you need IPv4 address on your services for at least 5 more years.
There are use cases where power residential/business users can't get their
applications running with port forwarding etc with CGN where multiple
customers share a single IPv4 address.

If you want to support 90% of the residential customer base, and perhaps
50-80% of the corporate one, then I'd say you could stick them behind CGN
of some kind right now. You decide if that would be "Premium" or not.

For data center, just charge extra for the IPv4 address and it'll sort out
itself. Generally I would do the same across the entire customer base,
start charging extra for GUA IPv4 address and then you'll see what
customers care and who do not. Even it you charge a few EUR per month, the
people who do not care will not opt for this, and you can stick them
behind CGN. The ones who do pay will pay enough so you can rent or buy
IPv4 addresses if you don't free up enough of them with your existing
customers being moved behind CGN.

When you roll new customers to behind a CGN I would highly recommend to
provide IPv4 connectivity by means of tunneling it over IPv6, such as
lw4o6, MAP-E or alike.

--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se

>> So, any thoughts on this topic, and any qualified guesses on when we no longer need to do IPv4 and still be able to call our internet product premium?

When will IPv6 provide me as an end-user with more "value" than what my current NATed IPv4 connection does?

Best regards,
Ole

Hi,

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:00:21AM +0100, Ole Troan wrote:
> >> So, any thoughts on this topic, and any qualified guesses on when we no longer need to do IPv4 and still be able to call our internet product premium?
>
> When will IPv6 provide me as an end-user with more "value" than what my current NATed IPv4 connection does?

Today!

(I'm hearing more and more reports that the CGNs deployed by big german
cable ISPs are breaking SIP and IPSEC to IPv4-only targets for their
customers...)

Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

Hi!

[Gert wrote]
> (I'm hearing more and more reports that the CGNs deployed by big german
> cable ISPs are breaking SIP and IPSEC to IPv4-only targets for their
> customers...)

Yes, they do break that. We had one case, where we replaced
IPsec with OpenVPN to overcome that issue.

KabelBW is selling business accounts with static IPv4 like mad, but
how long those last remains to be seen.

--
pi@opsec.eu +49 171 3101372 5 years to go !

Gert,

>>>> So, any thoughts on this topic, and any qualified guesses on when we no longer need to do IPv4 and still be able to call our internet product premium?
>>
>> When will IPv6 provide me as an end-user with more "value" than what my current NATed IPv4 connection does?
>
> Today!
>
> (I'm hearing more and more reports that the CGNs deployed by big german
> cable ISPs are breaking SIP and IPSEC to IPv4-only targets for their
> customers...)

But that's "better value" by making IPv4 work less good. and I'll postulate that we can make A+P / shared IPv4 work good enough that end-users who are trained to live behind a NATs will not notice.

For me I would get added value when I could deploy IPv6 only services at home, e.g. mail, XMPP, web, SIP... VPN.
And I could reach my own home whenever I'm travelling.

With a devil's advocate hat on, IPv6 in my home right now gives me slightly more hassle than it is worth.
The only value is that I am able to reach my IPv6 only mail server from work and at IETFs, but that's pretty much it.

I can't do IPv4 as a service either (like relegate IPv4 to the edge of the network and run IPv6 only inside), because there are too many IPv4 only devices.

When's that going to change?
50% deployment? 90% deployment?

cheers,
Ole

Hi,

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:41:05AM +0100, Ole Troan wrote:
> >> When will IPv6 provide me as an end-user with more "value" than what my current NATed IPv4 connection does?
> >
> > Today!
[..]
>
> But that's "better value" by making IPv4 work less good. and I'll
> postulate that we can make A+P / shared IPv4 work good enough that
> end-users who are trained to live behind a NATs will not notice.

For me, IPv6 has always been about "IPv4 does not have enough addresses,
and as a consequence of that, pain and avoidable cost ensues".

Thus, I'm not sure we do ourselves a favour by making IPv4-cludges so good
that the pain is hidden well enough - the fact that Kabel Deutschland is
breaking SIP is causing quite a bit of pain at one of the bigger german
SIP providers, who are rumoured to look into IPv6 deployment now...

> For me I would get added value when I could deploy IPv6 only services at home, e.g. mail, XMPP, web, SIP... VPN.
> And I could reach my own home whenever I'm travelling.

I can see that, and of course I have that for IPv4 already :-) - but
I claim that this is actually not something most (for wild handwaving
values of "most") users want, given that normal end users just don't
run services at home, might not even have always-on components at all
(readers of this list are not "normal end users", your parents might be).

One of the major benefits of IPv6 I see for SOHO users is the homenet
architecture with multihoming, SADR and service/ISP selection *by the
application* ("use cable ISP for bittorrent, use DSL for web browsing").

We're not there yet, though...

Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

"Anfinsen, Ragnar" <Ragnar.Anfinsen@altibox.no> writes:

> So, any thoughts on this topic, and any qualified guesses on when we no
> longer need to do IPv4 and still be able to call our internet product
> premium?

As Steinar pointed out: You can help speeding up the process by enabling
native IPv6 access for as many as possible (all?) of your subscribers
today.

I am sure you know that you can't completely skip the dual-stack phase,
and that's what you need to tell your manager. Sorry, but an opt-in 6RD
service isn't going to make IPv4 go away. You need to force enable
dual-stack access for as many users as you can. And if you dream about
doing IPv6 only, then 6RD isn't going to do, is it? You need to roll
out native IPv6 access, and you need to do that before you can even
think about dropping IPv4.

Any delay in your dual-stack rollout translates directly to increased
cost of buying IPv4 addresses because it delays the magic cutoff day
when you can start selling IPv4 access as an opional add-on service.


(Note that I work for Telenor, which is one of Altibox' direct
competitors in the Norwegian retail Internet access market)


Bjørn

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:00:21AM +0100, Ole Troan wrote:
> >> So, any thoughts on this topic, and any qualified guesses on when we no longer need to do IPv4 and still be able to call our internet product premium?
>
> When will IPv6 provide me as an end-user with more "value" than what my current NATed IPv4 connection does?

Since December of 2008. You can't reach
uggc://cubgb.orireyl.xyrvaohf.bet/argybt
through IPv4.

-is

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:41:05AM +0100, Ole Troan wrote:

> But that's "better value" by making IPv4 work less good. and I'll
> postulate that we can make A+P / shared IPv4 work good enough that
> end-users who are trained to live behind a NATs will not notice.

You mean, trained to see their downloads/web page updates break all
the time, like when they're in the mid of a tourist region during
vacation time? Hotel's WLAN's NAT tables clog, mobile phone provider's
NAT tables overflow. A lose-lose situation.

IPv4 will deteriorate more and more over the years. We have know this
for a quarter century now, and there is no way back.

-is

On 2015-02-12 01:41, Ole Troan wrote:
> But that's "better value" by making IPv4 work less good. and I'll
> postulate that we can make A+P / shared IPv4 work good enough that
> end-users who are trained to live behind a NATs will not notice.

Home end-users trained to live behind NATs are users trained to live
behind a NAT that supports UPnP and port-forwarding.

On Thu, 12 Feb 2015, Ole Troan wrote:

> But that's "better value" by making IPv4 work less good. and I'll
> postulate that we can make A+P / shared IPv4 work good enough that
> end-users who are trained to live behind a NATs will not notice.

Problem with that is that this doesn't work with anything that doesn't
have +P, so for instance my corporate VPN doesn't work because for some
reason it uses GRE.

I think we're going to have to do some kind of A+P for protocols with
port, and then do CGN (ds.lite) for everything else.

--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se

* Ole Troan

> When will IPv6 provide me as an end-user with more "value" than what
> my current NATed IPv4 connection does?

If you, like me, like to play games online, and at some point find
yourself googling for the cause of connectivity problems (it is just
*so* *extremely* infuriating to have the game stall on you while you're
sneaking up for the kill, and suddenly three seconds later it recovers
only that now *you're* the one sitting there in a pool of blood,
waiting to respawn), you'd surprised to see how much grief there is
about which «NAT Type» one has and suggestions on how to improve this.

Gamers in this situation might also stumble across Microsoft's
statement that if you want to experience ideal online connectivity with
the Xbox One, then you'll want to be using IPv6. And then if the gamer
then starts googling this «IPv6» thing he might find out that it
abolishes the hated NAT stuff entirely, and suddenly Microsoft's
statement makes perfect sense to him, and he will actually end up
actively *wanting* IPv6.

Anyway, this is how it is *today* for the XB1, and I've been told that
IPv6 support for the PS4 is on its way as well.

Tore

Mikael,

>> But that's "better value" by making IPv4 work less good. and I'll postulate that we can make A+P / shared IPv4 work good enough that end-users who are trained to live behind a NATs will not notice.
>
> Problem with that is that this doesn't work with anything that doesn't have +P, so for instance my corporate VPN doesn't work because for some reason it uses GRE.
>
> I think we're going to have to do some kind of A+P for protocols with port, and then do CGN (ds.lite) for everything else.

well, I think all applications will just end up having a P. if that means GRE over UDP or something else.
I would really have liked us to stop going down this path, but it seems like we're not going to be able to.

cheers,
Ole

* Anfinsen, Ragnar

> I am working with my management team to implement IPv6, but I got an
> interesting question from one of the managers; Why do we need more
> IPv4 if we are moving towards IPv6?

IPv6 doesn't relieve you of IPv4 growth pains until you can start
shutting down IPv4 in parts of your network, and reassign those
reclaimed IPv4 addresses to more valuable end-points (such as the CPEs).

However, once you have implemented IPv6 (and I understand that your new
network architecture supports native IPv6?), you can actually do stuff
like that. Mikael already mentioned MAP and lw4o6, and I'd just like to
add that this does not necessarily mean oversubscription of IPv4
addresses - at least with MAP, you can still assign "whole" /32s to
customers (or even larger prefixes for that matter).

These technologies also allow for more efficient utilisation of your
available IPv4 address space then what you're usually able to
accomplish in a traditional IPv4 network. If you assign a /24 to the
MAP service, you can make use of every single one of the 256 IP
addresses - including the .0 and .255 if you so desire.

You can do similar stuff in the data centre BTW, and I'm sure my
employer would be happy to have me help you out with that. ;-)

> A quick background; We are having discussions around IPv4 and IPv6
> and the need to eventually buy more IPv4 addresses to keep a premium
> level on our Internet access.

Can you really with a straight face today call your product «premium»,
when it lacks the IPv6 support at least two of your largest competitors
offer?

If you consider the existence of optional/opt-in IPv6 support as
sufficient to call the entire product «premium», then perhaps you could
extend that line of reasoning to public IPv4?

In other words, give your customers to shared IPv4 by default, but allow
them to opt-in to get a public IPv4 address. Some percentage of your
customers won't care to do so as they're perfectly happy without (just
as they might be perfectly happy without IPv6), leaving you with
available IPv4 addresses you can assign to your CGN/MAP/lw4o6/whatever
equipment and to those of your customers who opt in to get public IPv4.

Tore

Am 12.02.2015 um 12:05 schrieb Tore Anderson:

> And then if the gamer
> then starts googling this «IPv6» thing he might find out that it
> abolishes the hated NAT stuff entirely, and suddenly Microsoft's
> statement makes perfect sense to him, and he will actually end up
> actively *wanting* IPv6.

This might be so in Norway. In German customer portals the gamers mostly
demand ipv4 (public ipv4 address to their home) instead of DS-Lite. They
have already native IPv6 but avm was forced to allow "teredo" over DS
and DS-lite - because xbox has problems with native IPv6.

xbox is no good example for *wanting* IPv6.


>
> Anyway, this is how it is *today* for the XB1, and I've been told that
> IPv6 support for the PS4 is on its way as well.

Any public source/ statement from sony?

Regards,
Thomas

> This might be so in Norway. In German customer portals the gamers mostly
> demand ipv4 (public ipv4 address to their home) instead of DS-Lite. They
> have already native IPv6 but avm was forced to allow "teredo" over DS
> and DS-lite - because xbox has problems with native IPv6.
>
> xbox is no good example for *wanting* IPv6.

Could you elaborate on the IPv6 issues for xbox? I was under the impresion
that xbox works well with IPv6.


--
Erik Taraldsen

On 12/02/15 12:40, erik.taraldsen@telenor.com wrote:
>> This might be so in Norway. In German customer portals the gamers mostly
>> demand ipv4 (public ipv4 address to their home) instead of DS-Lite. They
>> have already native IPv6 but avm was forced to allow "teredo" over DS
>> and DS-lite - because xbox has problems with native IPv6.
>>
>> xbox is no good example for *wanting* IPv6.
>
> Could you elaborate on the IPv6 issues for xbox? I was under the impresion
> that xbox works well with IPv6.

The Teredo implementation used for person2person connectivity in Xbox
One does not have relays. That is, you can't talk Native IPv6 -> XB1 Teredo.

The implication is that, unless all parties in an XB1 session have
native IPv6, all parties will fall back to Teredo-over-IPv4. As such,
you need working Teredo/IPv4 for XB1 today, as you're very likely to
need to execute this fallback.

Given that Teredo relays were the unreliable bit, I can't fault this.

The XB1 Teredo stuff is actually quite a reasonable approach.

Cheers,
Phil

On Thu, 12 Feb 2015, erik.taraldsen@telenor.com wrote:

>> This might be so in Norway. In German customer portals the gamers mostly
>> demand ipv4 (public ipv4 address to their home) instead of DS-Lite. They
>> have already native IPv6 but avm was forced to allow "teredo" over DS
>> and DS-lite - because xbox has problems with native IPv6.
>>
>> xbox is no good example for *wanting* IPv6.
>
> Could you elaborate on the IPv6 issues for xbox? I was under the impresion
> that xbox works well with IPv6.

This thread probably:

http://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/2014-March/009929.html

--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se

Am 12.02.2015 um 13:40 schrieb erik.taraldsen@telenor.com:
>> This might be so in Norway. In German customer portals the gamers mostly
>> demand ipv4 (public ipv4 address to their home) instead of DS-Lite. They
>> have already native IPv6 but avm was forced to allow "teredo" over DS
>> and DS-lite - because xbox has problems with native IPv6.
>>
>> xbox is no good example for *wanting* IPv6.
>
> Could you elaborate on the IPv6 issues for xbox? I was under the impresion
> that xbox works well with IPv6.

It was last spring/summer. You can find it also in the archive of this
list.

In short:

xbox did not work at several (IPv6) providers. Some of them have patched
their routers and found a solution with Microsoft (comcast).
In other parts of the world, *the solution* was to allow teredo at an
IPv6-Access.
Because I don't own a xbox I haven't sniffed the network behaviour, but
I observe some costumer portals (e.g. Kabel Deutschland/Vodafone) and
there are still problems, often related to IPv6. (can have other reasons
too, like instability at all, Firewalls or something else)


Thomas

On 12/02/15 11:05, Tore Anderson wrote:
> * Ole Troan
>
>> When will IPv6 provide me as an end-user with more "value" than what
>> my current NATed IPv4 connection does?
>
> If you, like me, like to play games online, and at some point find
> yourself googling for the cause of connectivity problems (it is just

+100

Let me document something I ran into recently. Playstation 4 "party
chat" wasn't working for me, with some people.

Detailed examination showed the fault was causes by a complex
interaction between the UDP NAT traversal on the client, race conditions
with the HTTPS-based control channel, and the iptables/conntrack NAT
code on the CPE[1].

It made me mad, and made me want IPv6 :o(

Cheers,
Phil

[1] Details for the curious:

1. Client binds a UDP port and does a STUN discovery to determine
external IP/port

2. Client sends external IP/port to HTTPS-based "control" channel

3. Client requests IP/port of other participants from control channel
<client goes to sleep waiting for a reply here>

4. Remote participant receives our client IP/port and starts sending UDP
traffic to that port

5. Packets arrive at local CPE; no "conntrack" entry present, so traffic
is punted to local IP stack on CPE

6. Local IP stack generates ICMP port-unreachable

7. Conntrack inspects content of ICMP port-unreachable, extracts
"original" 5-tuple, creates a conntrack entry and links ICMP to it

8. Client receives remote participant IP/port from control channel,
sends UDP data to it, from already-bound UDP port

9. CPE sees UDP traffic; tries to map internal port to same external
port, finds a conflicting 5-tuple already present (from step #7) and
instead maps to random port.

10. Remote CPE sees traffic from random port; no conntrack mapping; goto
step 7...


The only way to get around this is to use the "DMZ" (forward all unknown
ports) functionality, which you can only point to one device - good luck
if you have two - or for the people managing the CPE to make the local
"iptables" INPUT chain DROP, not REJECT, at least for unknown UDP. Good
luck persuading lazy residential providers to fix that...

Grr. NAT sucks.

* Thomas Schäfer

> This might be so in Norway. In German customer portals the gamers
> mostly demand ipv4 (public ipv4 address to their home) instead of
> DS-Lite. They have already native IPv6 but avm was forced to allow
> "teredo" over DS and DS-lite - because xbox has problems with native
> IPv6.

IIRC this was for communication between a dual-stacked XB1 and an
IPv4-only XB1. It's impossible to use IPv6 for that, because IPv4 is
the lowest common denominator. The XB1 is simply using Teredo to tunnel
P2P traffic over IPv4.

Is there any known problems related to IPv6 communication between two
XB1s that both have native IPv6 access?

> > Anyway, this is how it is *today* for the XB1, and I've been told
> > that IPv6 support for the PS4 is on its way as well.
>
> Any public source/ statement from sony?

No, I just exchanged some e-mails with an SCE guy back in October. He
said:

«As for the PS4, the hardware was designed with IPv6 in mind and they
are planning to enable IPv6 at some point. (It is just a firmware
thing.) Initially we were told that the PS4 would launch with IPv6, but
in the end I think they were just so busy getting all the other stuff
done that they decided to wait on implementing IPv6 on it. I know that
they are still planning on implementing it, but unfortunately no one
has shared any dates with me.»

Hopefully it'll come soon.

Tore