[114026] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Study of IPv6 Deployment
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeroen Massar)
Tue Apr 28 05:06:15 2009
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 11:06:06 +0200
From: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org>
To: Elliott Karpilovsky <elliottk@CS.Princeton.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <10BA3662CE0C4030989C1765A0CEE76E@awesometron40k>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig86C9DD3BC1FCD4E2658CF744
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Elliott Karpilovsky wrote:
> Hello everyone. My name is Elliott Karpilovsky, a student at Princeton =
University. In collaboration with Alex Gerber (AT&T Research), Dan Pei (A=
T&T Research), Jennifer Rexford (Princeton University), and Aman Shaikh (=
AT&T Research), we studied the extent of IPv6 deployment at both global a=
nd local levels. Our conclusions can be summarized by the following three=
points:
>=20
> 1.) IPv6 deployment is not seen as a pressing issue.
> 2.) We saw a lack of meaningful IPv6 traffic (mostly DNS/Domain and ICM=
P messages), possibly indicating that IPv6 networks are still experimenta=
l.
> 3.) Studying Teredo traffic suggested that it may be used for NAT busti=
ng by P2P networks.
>=20
> Our paper (submitted and presented at PAM 2009) can be found at http://=
www.cs.princeton.edu/~elliottk/ipv6study.html . If you have comments or f=
eedback with respect to these results, please feel free to express them.
Nasty comment time...
"To analyze native IPv6 traf=EF=AC=81c, we use Net=EF=AC=82ow records col=
lected from an
IPv6 Internet gateway router in a US tier-1 ISP with 11 IPv6 BGP
neighbors. These records were collected from 2008-4-1 to 2008-9-26, and
are taken from the business customers. "
Sorry to have to make this comment, but the IPv6 side of the Internet is
quite a bit larger than "11 peers". I don't really think that AT&T can
call themselves a "tier-1 ISP" on the IPv6 field (they can on IPv4),
especially as there are these wonderful give-aways as using OCCAID as a
transit:
[..]
7 fr-par02a-re1-t-2.ipv6.aorta.net (2001:730::1:2d) 51.944 ms 51.596
ms 51.915 ms
8 uk-lon01a-re1-t-1.ipv6.aorta.net (2001:730::1:2a) 60.802 ms 61.405
ms 61.498 ms
9 ibr01-ve26.lndn01.occaid.net (2001:7f8:4::7577:1) 37.941 ms 37.797
ms 37.88 ms
10 bbr01-p1-0.nwrk01.occaid.net (2001:4830:fe:1010::2) 106.622 ms
106.538 ms 106.701 ms
11 r1.mdtnj.ipv6.att.net (2001:4830:e2:2a::2) 145.847 ms 145.762 ms
146.049 ms
12 2001:1890:61:9017::2 (2001:1890:61:9017::2) 222.045 ms 222.694 ms
223.185 ms
13 mail.ietf.org (2001:1890:1112:1::20) 221.683 ms 221.66 ms 222.839 =
ms
Heck, I can't find a single ISP in GRH with which I can reach AT&T
(where eg www.ietf.org is currently in) from Europe directly.
Unfortunately, I will have to state that that thus completely makes that
whole paper useless as the data is used is just that: useless.
I really really really hope that AT&T finally realizes that they have to
start deploying IPv6.
When they have done that, re-run your "study" and then release those
numbers as then they will maybe be interesting when there are actual
customers on the links.
Greets,
Jeroen
--------------enig86C9DD3BC1FCD4E2658CF744
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFJ9scAKaooUjM+fCMRAtIgAKCmD8MeIPDg8wam34Ij7e1k0WTWAwCgtjb/
W9v0wcHfE85ttbdyEYmSSAI=
=m4ml
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--------------enig86C9DD3BC1FCD4E2658CF744--
