[140328] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Yahoo and IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon May 9 22:35:50 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <4DC8476F.2070905@dougbarton.us>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 19:34:59 -0700
To: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org, 'Arie Vayner' <ariev@vayner.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On May 9, 2011, at 12:58 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 05/09/2011 12:40, Tony Hain wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Doug Barton [mailto:dougb@dougbarton.us]
>>> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 12:11 PM
>>> To: Jared Mauch
>>> Cc: nanog@nanog.org; Arie Vayner
>>> Subject: Re: Yahoo and IPv6
>>>=20
>>> On 05/09/2011 10:27, Jared Mauch wrote:
>>>> I do feel the bar that Yahoo is setting is too high. There are a =
lot
>>> of network elements that are broken, either DNS servers, home
>>> 'gateway/nat' devices, or other elements in the delegation chain.
>>>=20
>>> Publicly held corporations are responsible to their shareholders to =
get
>>> eyeballs on their content. *That* is their job, not promoting cool =
new
>>> network tech. When you have millions of users hitting your site =
every
>>> day losing 1/2000 is a large chunk of revenue. The fact that the big
>>> players are doing world IPv6 day at all should be celebrated, =
promoted,
>>> and we should all be ready to take to heart the lessons learned from
>>> it.
>>>=20
>>> The content providers are not to be blamed for the giant mess that =
IPv6
>>> deployment has become. If 6to4 and Teredo had never happened, in all
>>> likelihood we wouldn't be in this situation today.
>>=20
>> Which situation ??? The one where the content can demonstrate how =
broken the
>> networks really are? Or the one where the content sites are exposed =
for
>> their lack of prior planning?
>=20
> I disagree with your attempt to scope the problem. :)
>=20
>> The entire point of those technologies you are complaining about was =
to
>> break the stalemate between content and network,
>=20
> I also disagree with this statement, but there is very little point in =
arguing about it at this stage.
>=20
>> because both sides will
>> always wait and blame the other. The fact that the content side chose =
to
>> wait until the last possible minute to start is where the approach =
falls
>> down. Expecting magic to cover for lack of proactive effort 5-10 =
years ago
>> is asking a bit much, even for the content mafia.
>=20
> One could also argue that the fact that the IPv6 protocol is still not =
fully mature, and that the IPv6 intelligentsia are only recently coming =
to the point where they are willing to give both the content and eyeball =
networks what they've been asking for all along (PI and robust DHCPv6 =
being top of the respective lists) has led to the situation we're in =
now. Of course the truth is probably somewhere in the middle, but it's =
definitely not all on one side.
>=20
PI was granted at least in the ARIN region in since August 30, 2006. I =
know, I wrote
the original policy proposal (2005-1 which was later merged with =
proposals from
Andrew Dul and Kevin Loch based on a cooperative effort among the three =
of us).
I doubt that DHCPv6 was standing in the way of content providers.
>> In any case, the content side can mitigate all of the latency related =
issues
>> they complain about in 6to4 by putting in a local 6to4 router and =
publishing
>> the corresponding 2002:: prefix based address in DNS for their =
content. They
>> choose to hold their breath and turn blue, blaming the network for =
the lack
>> of 5-9's access to the eyeballs when they hold at least part of a =
solution
>> in their own hands.
>=20
> Looking at that from the content provider side for a second, what is =
their motivation for doing it? The IETF created 6to4, and some foolish =
OS and/or hardware vendors enabled it by default. So you're saying that =
it's up to the content providers to spend money to fix a problem they =
didn't create, when the easy/free solution is simply not to turn on IPv6 =
at all? I completely fail to see an incentive for the content providers =
to do this, but maybe I'm missing something.
>=20
While we're not directly a content provider, we do host several of them =
and we do
run the largest network of 6to4 relays that I am aware of. In our =
experience at HE,
this has dramatically improved the IPv6 experience for our clients. As =
such, I would
think that providing a better user experience should serve as reasonable =
motivation
for any rational content provider. It's not like running 6to4 relays is =
difficult or
expensive.
> And can we please stop pretending that this is an easy thing for the =
content providers to do? Big content networks like Yahoo! have dozens of =
POPs, and hundreds of address ranges. The IETF is *still* working on =
tweaking 6to4, so even if the content providers put up these relays =
today, and somehow figure out how to test them, their work is not done.
>=20
It is relatively easy to do, even with dozens of POPs. There isn't =
anything special you
have to do for the hundreds of address ranges, really, so I don't buy =
that as being a
meaningful part of the argument.
> I do agree with you that pointing fingers at this stage is really not =
helpful. I continue to maintain that being supportive of those content =
networks that are willing to wade in is the right answer.
>=20
Agreed, but, it's also important to point out when they're starting to =
swim in directions
that are counterproductive, such as having help sites that advise users =
to turn off
IPv6 with fixing their IPv6 capabilities as a secondary option.
Owen
>=20
