[137355] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Cameron Byrne)
Fri Feb 11 15:32:27 2011
In-Reply-To: <116E791B-4F77-47C8-9A3A-0C8034FAD95C@delong.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 12:29:51 -0800
From: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>
> On Feb 11, 2011, at 7:00 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
>
>>
>>> I don't know about that. =A0Yes, v4 will be around for a long time but
>>> considering the oligopolies we have in both eyeball and content
>>> networks, ones a dozen or so very large networks switch, there is the
>>> vast majority of Internet traffic right there. =A0It will be around for=
a
>>> very long time handling a tiny bit of traffic.
>>>
>> Agreed, V4 traffic levels are likely to drop and stay at low levels for =
decades.
>
> I don't think it will be just a drop in traffic levels. I think that it w=
ill not be long
> before the internet is an IPv6 ocean with islands of IPv4, much like it w=
as
> an ocean of IPv4 with islands of IPv6 years ago.
>
>>> Facebook alone accounts for 25% of internet traffic in the US. Netflix
>>> is estimated to be over 20% and YouTube at 10%. =A0So that's 55% of
>>> Internet traffic right there. =A0At the other end of the transaction yo=
u
>>> have AT&T with 15.7 million, Comcast at 15.9 million, Verizon at 9.2
>>> million and Time Warner at 8.9 million (early 2010 numbers). =A0That's =
50
>>> million of the estimated 83 million US broadband subscribers. =A0So onc=
e
>>> three content providers and four subscriber nets switch, that is over
>>> 25% of US internet traffic on v6 (more than half the users and more tha=
n
>>> half the content they look at).
>> Comcast, nor the other large MSOs, are not as monolithic as they may app=
ear from the outside. =A0In most cases the large MSOs are divided into regi=
ons that are more or less autonomous and that doesn't count the outlier pro=
perties that haven't been brought into the fold of the region they are in f=
or various, usually cost related, reasons so don't expect a large block of =
any of those guys to suddenly be at 60% of their users can get IPv6 address=
es.
>>
> I think you'll be in for a surprise here.
>
>> While Facebook working over IPv6 will be a big deal you won't get all of=
their traffic since a significant fraction of that traffic is from mobile =
devices which are going to take much longer than PCs to get to using IPv6 i=
n large numbers. =A0Also, Netflix is even more problematic since the bulk o=
f their traffic, and the fastest growing segment as well, is coming from Xb=
oxes, Tivos, other gaming consoles, and =A0TVs with enough embedded brains =
to talk directly. =A0Those devices will also seriously lag behind PCs in IP=
v6 support.
>>
> I think you'll be in for a surprise here, too. The 4G transition is alrea=
dy underway. For the vendors where 4G means LTE, IPv6 is the native protoco=
l and IPv4 requires a certain amount of hackery to operate.
>
> In the WiMax case (Gee, thanks, SPRINT), things are a bit murkier, but, I=
think you will see WiMax go IPv6 pretty quickly as well.
>
> Yes, it will take a little longer to retire the 3G system(s) than many ot=
her parts of the internet, but, I think you will see most of it going away =
in the 5-7 year range.
>
This is not quite the case. 2G / 3G / 4G largely refers to radio
interface aspects, and the packet core that moves IP packets is
largely the same. I have a 5 year old 2G/GSM Nokia phone that support
IPv6 over cellular just fine on my network today.
There are several LTE deployments around the world that are IPv4 only.
There is no hackery require to make IPv4 work in LTE. LTE supports
IPv4, IPv6, and IPv4v6 bearers all the same... its just an option from
the core perspective, handset / chipset makers like to limit the
options to keep cost and variability down.
The pressure needs to be applied to the handset makers, they are
squarely the "long pole in the tent" here.
Cameron
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
http://groups.google.com/group/tmoipv6beta
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>> I don't think the growth of v6 traffic is going to be gradual, I think
>>> it will increase in steps. =A0 You will wake up one morning to find you=
r
>>> v6 traffic doubled and some other morning it will double again.
>>
>> They'll be jumps, but they will be fairly smallish jumps since both the =
content maker, the ISP, and the device consuming the content all have to be=
ready. =A0Since I don't imagine we will see any pure IPv6 deployments any =
time soon many/most of the IPv6 deploys will be dual stack and so we are st=
ill at the mercy of the AAAA record returning before the A record does.
>
> You misunderstand how getaddrinfo() works under the hood. The code itself=
first does an AAAA lookup and then does an A lookup. DNS does not return b=
oth record sets at once. If there is an AAAA record, it will return first.
>
> Some OS have modified things to resort the getaddrinfo() returns based on=
the perceived type of IPv6 and IPv4 connectivity available as an attempt t=
o reduce certain forms of brokenness. However, even in those cases, you sho=
uld get the AAAA first if you have real IPv6 connectivity.
>
> Owen
>>
>
>
>
