Mailing List Archive

On Mon, 6 Mar 2017, Gert Doering wrote:

> If a CPE has no v6 support, having it available on the DSLAM (in passive
> mode = do not start IPv6CP until the client initiates it) will not do
> harm.

The issue here isn't devices that do not support IPv6, it's the ones that
do support IPv6 when it "suddenly" is turned on.

> The mobile carriers nicely demonstrated how *not* to do it - by ignoring
> the mandate for IPv6 in 3G, and rolling out huge masses of v4-only
> handsets, they suddenly had a huge installed basis of, well, v4-only
> legacy devices to deal with...

Most carriers do not control handsets anymore. Those days are long gone.

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

Am 06.03.2017 um 11:37 schrieb Florian Lohoff:
> Nevertheless - As an ISP i would never enable IPv6 for Customers
> without beeing shure that they are aware.

While I understand the concerns, since I was in this situation a while
ago at $ORKPLACE[-1] (you may remember me from your former employer :),
this is OK in the early phase, were you want to make sure that your
hotline won't blow up. If you want a significant IPv6 usage (which we
all do, I hope), you'll just start enabling it. We had several phases,
roughly and IIRC:
- enabled it for customers that ask for it (after announcing it in the
support forum)
- enabled it for new customers on the network side. The few ones that
enable it by themselves will profit, but this is mainly to make sure
your access network won't run into problems when going large scale
- after a while, started enabling for all customers network-side
- enable it on new customers CPEs (or whenever they reset their CPE).
with an appropriate rate of new customers, you will get nice numbers
after several months.

So here we are now, a good six-figure (or maybe even seven by now)
number using IPv6, most without knowing or noticing, without any big
issues rolling in from support. So from my experience I would say: be bold!


Regards
Jakob

Hi,

On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 01:26:57PM +0100, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> > The mobile carriers nicely demonstrated how *not* to do it - by ignoring
> > the mandate for IPv6 in 3G, and rolling out huge masses of v4-only
> > handsets, they suddenly had a huge installed basis of, well, v4-only
> > legacy devices to deal with...
>
> Most carriers do not control handsets anymore. Those days are long gone.

The day to roll out mobile Internet properly are indeed long gone, now
they get to deal with the legacy.

3G mandated IPv6, no carrier actually deployed it *before* they had a
huge legacy of IPv4-only handsets in the field... could have been done
from day one.

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

On Mon, 6 Mar 2017, Gert Doering wrote:

> 3G mandated IPv6, no carrier actually deployed it *before* they had a
> huge legacy of IPv4-only handsets in the field... could have been done
> from day one.

On the other hand no handset manufacturer apart from Nokia ever made any
3G handsets that supported IPv6.

Also, since you needed two concurrent bearers and the 3GPP network vendors
charged per bearer, it also make IPv6 deployment extremely expensive.

Yes, plenty of blame to go around. It's not only a carrier problem.

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

Hi,

On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 02:07:31PM +0100, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Mar 2017, Gert Doering wrote:
>
> > 3G mandated IPv6, no carrier actually deployed it *before* they had a
> > huge legacy of IPv4-only handsets in the field... could have been done
> > from day one.
>
> On the other hand no handset manufacturer apart from Nokia ever made any
> 3G handsets that supported IPv6.

I'm not sure why "point to the part in the 3G specs that says v6 is mandatory"
would have been so hard...

> Also, since you needed two concurrent bearers and the 3GPP network vendors
> charged per bearer, it also make IPv6 deployment extremely expensive.
>
> Yes, plenty of blame to go around. It's not only a carrier problem.

If you wanted reasons to not deploy IPv6, there have always been excuses
galore.

But then do not complain 10 years later that you have such a large basis
of IPv4-only clients and all of a sudden it's sooo much work...

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

Am 06.03.2017 um 13:48 schrieb Gert Doering:

> 3G mandated IPv6, no carrier actually deployed it *before* they had a
> huge legacy of IPv4-only handsets in the field... could have been done
> from day one.


One interesting point here is: Despite the late start of the mobile
network people, we have some user equipment at the moment.

LTE/UMTS-modems(usb/mPCIe) - no firewall issue - because it is
exclusively done / not done by the OS of the connected device (e.g.
Notebook)

LTE/UMTS - router, my focus is on the mobile things here: I never have
seen firewall settings for IPv6, only a lot of mostly obsolete IPv4-features

LTE-router for DSL-replacement may be better here, but I don't know

Some phones are able to share IPv6-connections (tethering,
hotspot-mode): Do they provide a firewall? Is it useful?

Can anybody test it? I can't because there is a big firewall by the ISP.


Regards,
Thomas

On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 01:34:19PM +0100, Jakob Hirsch wrote:
> While I understand the concerns, since I was in this situation a
> while ago at $ORKPLACE[-1] (you may remember me from your former
> employer :), this is OK in the early phase, were you want to make

I do remember ;)

> sure that your hotline won't blow up. If you want a significant IPv6
> usage (which we all do, I hope), you'll just start enabling it. We
> had several phases, roughly and IIRC:

For me personally i have seen strange things happening enabling IPv6
which i wish nobody to debug again - the cups issue was one of
the interesting ones. Now i have occasionally the case with an
Dualstack WLAN and a IPv4 only Wired connection on the same
Debian/Jessie which regularly produce strange failure symptoms which
causes me to disable the WLAN is certain environments.

> So here we are now, a good six-figure (or maybe even seven by now)
> number using IPv6, most without knowing or noticing, without any big
> issues rolling in from support. So from my experience I would say:
> be bold!

Its not a technical problem as i hope anyone understands. Its a
marking/psychological problem. And before doing nothing because of
beeing afraid of all the things which might happen i'd rather push
forward slowly by using some new products or product introduction
as the DTAG did. IMHO a very clever thing although for some on this
list it is to slow. Put pushing harder might even make it slower.
(RFC1925)

I fought for enabling IPv6 for a couple of years - then i had the
opportunity to a green field ISP and we did dualstack from Day 1 and
we had zero problems caused by IPv6. But it was a single CPE Vendor
deployment.

Now i am with a hosting provider and IMHO the problems are even bigger.
Customer dont see the need for even looking at IPv6 and all the IPv6
lan security headache ...

Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The ???? ran after a ????, but the ???? ran away

On 07/03/2017 00:11, Florian Lohoff wrote:
...
> You cant enable some feature for "Aunt Tilly" without her at least
> beeing able to take action.

Why not? With a decent UE (such as a FritzBox indeed) and a normal
Happy Eyeballs browser, this mythical lady will not notice whether
IPv6 is up, down or half-up.

Today, my ISP is in a strange mood, and has given my FritzBox a prefix
which is unrouted. So my browser falls back to IPv4. Yesterday, it gave
me no prefix, so the day was IPv4-only.The day before, it gave me a
prefix that actually worked, so the whole day was true dual stack.


I notice this because I log IPv6 connectivity. My wife has no idea this
is going on. (Why my ISP offers inconsistent IPv6 service is another
question, which their help desk cannot answer.)

Brian

2017-03-05 08:08 +1300 2406:e007:7204:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6871
2017-03-06 07:51 +1300 fd63:45eb:dc14:0:28cc:dc4c:9703:6871
2017-03-07 07:51 +1300 2406:e001:535a:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6871 (ping failed)

On 6 Mar 2017, at 12:26, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se<mailto:swmike@swm.pp.se>> wrote:

On Mon, 6 Mar 2017, Gert Doering wrote:

If a CPE has no v6 support, having it available on the DSLAM (in passive mode = do not start IPv6CP until the client initiates it) will not do harm.

The issue here isn't devices that do not support IPv6, it's the ones that do support IPv6 when it "suddenly" is turned on.

The mobile carriers nicely demonstrated how *not* to do it - by ignoring the mandate for IPv6 in 3G, and rolling out huge masses of v4-only handsets, they suddenly had a huge installed basis of, well, v4-only legacy devices to deal with...

Most carriers do not control handsets anymore. Those days are long gone.

But the mobile situation is now becoming better, isn’t it? I read that >50% of the traffic to Facebook from the bigger US mobile operators is now IPv6. In the UK, we have at least one mobile operator with a growing deployment of over half a million v6-only handsets - see https://indico.uknof.org.uk/event/38/contribution/8/material/slides/1.pdf.

tim

Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk> writes:

> But the mobile situation is now becoming better, isn’t it? I read that
> >50% of the traffic to Facebook from the bigger US mobile operators is
> now IPv6. In the UK, we have at least one mobile operator with a
> growing deployment of over half a million v6-only handsets - see
> https://indico.uknof.org.uk/event/38/contribution/8/material/slides/1.pdf.

Tore's excellent statistics shows that 2/3 of the traffic from Norway's
biggest mobile operator now is IPv6:
https://fud.no/munin/Networking/Networking/vg_ds_telenor_mobil.html

100% is the next reasonable goal :)


Bjørn

On Tue, 7 Mar 2017, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> I notice this because I log IPv6 connectivity. My wife has no idea this
> is going on. (Why my ISP offers inconsistent IPv6 service is another
> question, which their help desk cannot answer.)

Yeah, I have the same experience. Historically I've had my IPv6 down for
days before I actually needed it to ssh home to one of my devices. HE
solvs most user issues.

Only thing that makes it break is if there is PMTUD blackhole. So better
to stop IPv6 (or IPv4) working completely, than to introduce PMTUD
blackhole.

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