[162598] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: "It's the end of the world as we know it" -- REM
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Apr 26 07:36:38 2013
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <5179EB1F.8070302@mtcc.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 07:31:02 -0400
To: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Apr 25, 2013, at 10:49 PM, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
> On 04/25/2013 07:27 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> At some level, I wonder how much the feedback loop of "providers
>>> won't deploy ipv6 because everybody says they won't deploy ipv6"
>>> has caused this self-fulfilling prophecy :/
>> It's a definite issue. The bigger issue is the financial incentives =
are all in the
>> wrong direction.
>>=20
>> Eyeball networks have an incentive not to deploy IPv6 until content =
providers
>> have done so or until they have no other choice.
>=20
> Yet, eyeball networks are the ones being asked to pony up all of the
> cost to put in place the hacks to keep v4 running so they don't get
> support center calls. That's a pretty asymmetric, and a potential =
opportunity.
Quite the contrary=85 I personally think that the abysmal rate of IPv6 =
adoption among
some content providers (Are you listening, Amazon, Xbox, BING?) is just =
plain shameful.
I applaud Yahoo, Google, Facebook, and others who have adopted IPv6. I'd =
like
to applaud Netflix here, but they keep going back and forth on their =
IPv6 support,
so they get a one-handed clap for the moment.
I'm trying to encourage people to push on the content providers to =
deploy IPv6
to avoid the need for eyeball networks to pony up all these bizarre =
hacks.
Lee Howard has some rather interesting research showing that for eyeball
networks, the most cost effective thing up to about (IIRC) $15/address =
is to
simply keep buying IPv4 addresses on the transfer market. Beyond that, =
it
actually becomes cheaper to simply go IPv6-only and accept the loss of
customers that won't accept that solution.
>>> On the other hand, there is The Cloud. I assume that aws and all of =
the
>>> other major vm farms have native v6 networks by now (?). I hooked up
>> You again assume facts not in evidence. Many cloud providers have =
done
>> IPv6. Rackspace stands out as exemplary in this regard. Linode has =
done
>> some good work in this space.
>>=20
>> AWS stands out as a complete laggard in this area.
>=20
> Heh... that's why I put all kinds of question marks and hedges :)
> That's disappointing about aws. On the other hand, if aws lights
> up v6, a huge amount of content will be v6 capable in one swell-foop.
> Which is a different problem of death by a thousand cuts of corpro
> data centers, and racked up servers in no-name cages.
Actually, if Amazon.com lit up IPv6, it would dramatically change the =
IPv6-only
client landscape. I believe they are the single largest IPv4-only =
content provider
remaining. IIRC from Lee's statistics, Amazon + any 2 other members of =
the
Alexa 100 would make it possible for 70% or more of web traffic to go =
over
IPv6.
>>> v6 support on linode in, oh, less than an hour for my site. Maybe =
part
>>> of this just evangelizing with the Cloud folks to get the word out =
that
>>> v6 is both supported *and* beneficial for your site? And it might =
give them
>>> a leg up with "legacy" web infrastructure data centers to lure them? =
"Oh,
>>> your corpro IT guys won't light up v6? let me show you how easy it =
is on
>>> $MEGACLOUD".
>> +1 -- I encourage people to seek providers that support IPv6.
>>=20
>=20
> Name. and. shame. At some level, some amount of bs is probably useful
> to scare the suits: "OMG, VZW'S PHONES SUPPORT V6, DO WE DO THAT????".
> Roll your eyes, but, well, remember they're suits.
I've been doing just that. Interestingly, I got a great deal of =
criticism for doing
so recently.
Owen
