Here's what the general public is hearing:
And yes, I checked the dateline this time. 
Cheers,
-- jra
Here's what the general public is hearing:
But only while they still have IPv4 addresses:
~$ dig AAAA arstechnica.com +short
~$
June | 2014 | Ars Technica
nning-out-of-ipv4-its-official-the-internet-is-full/
Can't tech news sites *please* run dual stack while they're spouting
end-of-IPv4 stories?
Lee
<wishful thinking=on>
I would love to see a few more properties do IPv6 by default, such as ARS, Twitter and a few others. After posting some links and being a log stalker last night the first 3 hits from non-bots were from users on IPv6 enabled networks.
It does ring a bit hollow that these sites haven't gotten there when others (Google, Facebook) have already shown you can publish AAAA records with no adverse public impact. Making IPv6 available by default for users would be an excellent step. People like AT&T who control the 'attwifi' ssid could do NAT66 at their sites and provide similar service to the masses. With chains like Hilton, McDonalds, etc.. all having this available, it would push IPv6 very far almost immediately with no adverse impact compared to users IPv4 experience.
- Jared
[..]
Can't tech news sites *please* run dual stack while they're
spouting end-of-IPv4 stories?<wishful thinking=on>
I would love to see a few more properties do IPv6 by default, such as
ARS, Twitter and a few others. After posting some links and being a
log stalker last night the first 3 hits from non-bots were from users
on IPv6 enabled networks.
[..]
I tried to give Slashdot the hint some 11+ years ago...
They still didn't get that hint... then again slashdot is way passed its
prime. But even sites like Reddit don't have AAAAs.
I guess now that it is 2014 and the address space is really as good as
gone some sites will finally start buying IPv6 enabled equipment and
start learning what the problems might be in their codebase, router
equipment and most expensively: staff training.
Oh well, they can't claim they where not told anything...
Greets,
Jeroen
IPv6 will never become the defacto standard until the vast majority of
users have access to IPv6 connectivity.
Everything I have at the colo is dual stacked, but I can't reach my own
systems via IPv6 because my business class Verizon Fios connection is
IPv4 *only*. Yes, Comcast is in the process of rolling out IPv6, but my
Comcast circuit in Washington DC is IPv4 only. And I'd suspect that
everyone with Time Warner, AT&T, Cox, etc are all in the same boat.
Whether the reason for the lack of IPv6 deployment is laziness or an
intentional omission on the part of large ISPs to protect their income
from leasing IPv4 addresses doesn't matter to the vast majority of the
end users; they simply can't access IPv6 via IPv4 only networks,
without using some kludgy, complicated tunneling protocols.
Andy
"no" adverse impact?
Seems to me I've seen a few threads go by the last few years that suggested
that there were a few pathological cases where having the 4A record was
worse than not...
Cheers,
-- jra
> From: "Jared Mauch" <jared@puck.nether.net>
> It does ring a bit hollow that these sites haven't gotten there when
> others (Google, Facebook) have already shown you can publish AAAA
> records with no adverse public impact."no" adverse impact?
Seems to me I've seen a few threads go by the last few years that suggested
that there were a few pathological cases where having the 4A record was
What's this "4A" garbage?
worse than not...
See the red line. IPv6 – Google
Additionally Google and FaceBook have basically forced the client
side to fix their broken network configurations by publishing AAAA
records to everyone. It only takes one or two big sites to force
this issue which they have done.
You are nowhere near the bleeding edge by publishing AAAA records today.
Mark
What I do find interesting (and without any data) is why some folks have removed IPv6, eg:
But there is no AAAA for it anymore.
My simple rant is: it's 2014, if you don't at least have IPv6 on for your edge facing your ISP and your allocation, you're doing it wrong.
- Jared
Yes, currently less than 0.05% of end users and usually because they have misconfigured systems that think they have IPv6 access when they really don't.
One could make a valid argument that this is no worse than systems with misconfigured IPv4 who cannot reach Google at all even if they don't publish AAAA records because their IPv4 is so badly misconfigured that it doesn't work either. I suspect it may well be approximately the same fraction of systems, though it may take longer to notice/resolve the IPv6 issues than the IPv4 ones.
Owen
At the last RIPE i had some troubles with my IPv4 while my IPv6 worked fine. Folks internally grumbled about fixing IPv6 hosts because those with IPv6 are in the minority, but that is a diminishing view and honestly people who keep repeating that will slowly undercut themselves out of relevance.
- jared
These sites used to be dual-stacked:
www.cablelabs.com (over 180 days ago via ipv6.cablelabs.com)
www.att.net (over 44 days ago)
www.charter.com (over 151 days)
www.globalcrossing.com (over 802 days)
www.timewarnercable.com (over 593 days)
and www.t-online.de has been broken for over 33 days.
Frank
"IPv6 will never become the defacto standard until the vast majority of
users have access to IPv6 connectivity."
It may never become the defacto standard, period. Nearly 20 years to reach
2% penetration is a strong hint that the costs outweigh the benefits.
IP's global addressing system is broken from the outset. See John Day's
presentation "Surviving Networking’s Dark Ages - or How in the Hell Do You
Lose a Layer!?"
<http://irati.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/1-LostLayer130123.pdf> (or,
indeed, lots of them at once.)
It's really all about scopes, not layers - the TCP/IP architecture is
divided up the wrong way, and it will never be fixed. It's an escaped 1970s
lab experiment that was able to extract the statistical multiplexing gain
faster than rivals, but on a performance and security "buy now, pay later"
basis.
If you want to see a viable alternative approach, read my post "Network
architecture research: TCP/IP vs RINA"
<http://www.martingeddes.com/think-tank/nuclear-networking/> for an
introduction. That said, I'm not expecting anyone to immediately resign
their membership of the Seven Layer Adventists as a result. Yes, the
Internet's intellectual foundations are rotten - but that is too much
anxiety and dissonance for most people to cope with.
May all your intentional semantics become operational,
Martin
* mail@martingeddes.com (Martin Geddes) [Wed 18 Jun 2014, 18:17 CEST]:
It may never become the defacto standard, period. Nearly 20 years to reach
2% penetration is a strong hint that the costs outweigh the benefits.
Never before have we run out of IPv4 address space, so this time may well be different, now that an actual need for change is developing.
[..]
their membership of the Seven Layer Adventists as a result. Yes, the
Nobody outside academia considers the OSI model a valid representation of the Internet.
-- Niels.
* mail@martingeddes.com (Martin Geddes) [Wed 18 Jun 2014, 18:17 CEST]:
It may never become the defacto standard, period. Nearly 20 years to reach
2% penetration is a strong hint that the costs outweigh the benefits.
The 2% number is also not particularly meaningful. Traffic levels as measured by Google are closer to 4%, but even that doesn't tell the whole story.
The total deployment of IPv6 is probably much closer to 15-25% globally. The astonishingly lower traffic figures are a result of the following likely factors:
1. They represent the intersection of client AND servers that are IPv6 enabled.
2. They are further reduced by happy eyeballs often preferring IPv4 even when IPv6 would work.
3. End user and enterprise adoption is lagging, even where IPv6 could be fully deployed in minutes without any harm.
Never before have we run out of IPv4 address space, so this time may well be different, now that an actual need for change is developing.
Indeed. A time is coming when new content and services will be unable to be deployed on IPv4 due to lack of number resources. Once that starts to occur, IPv6 becomes the only viable alternative. The question at this point is not whether IPv6 will become the de facto standard, but how much pain we will inflict on the general public in that transition process.
If we deploy IPv6 ubiquitously before we reach that point, then the pain of transition can be minimized. If we fail to do so, then the transition will be abrupt, painful, and very disruptive.
Unfortunately, this is a classic recipe for the tragedy of the commons. We must all act in our mutual best interest deploying IPv6, or, we will all suffer together. Sadly, those who deploy IPv6 later will suffer the least at first and what happens in the long run remains to be seen.
Owen
"IPv6 will never become the defacto standard until the vast majority of
users have access to IPv6 connectivity."It may never become the defacto standard, period. Nearly 20 years to reach
2% penetration is a strong hint that the costs outweigh the benefits.
To be fair, it is only now that there is considerable leverage to actually use IPv6 outside of a academic scope. Our company is ready now, and it’s just a commercial retailer. I know we are way ahead of the curve but I didn’t find it all that hard.
I see a lot of people crying foul, still, but IPv6 capable equipment is readily available now, and, it is up to you if you find it worthwhile to purchase. The worldwide IPv6 transit network is complete and most ISPs can actually deliver on IPv6 if you push them for it and don’t let them ship you off with „we can’t do it yet”.
As such we’ve had IPv6 at work since 2012, and we got to talk to engineers and it wasn’t really that much of a problem. Also, the free BGP tunnel from HE.net really is a lifesaver in getting at least backup peering in place, and that worked fine for over a year.
IP's global addressing system is broken from the outset. See John Day's
presentation "Surviving Networking’s Dark Ages - or How in the Hell Do You
Lose a Layer!?"
<http://irati.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/1-LostLayer130123.pdf> (or,
indeed, lots of them at once.)
I don’t know, 64 bits for the networks, and 64 bits for the hosts seems fine, although to be fair, a 96/32 split could have worked too, more about networks and aggregated routes, less about hosts. It’s also really good that there is a „absolute split” at 64 bits to designate the network prefix part. That makes network identifying a lot easier. I suppose that is where the shorter network prefix is coming from, it’s easier to remember.
It's really all about scopes, not layers - the TCP/IP architecture is
divided up the wrong way, and it will never be fixed. It's an escaped 1970s
lab experiment that was able to extract the statistical multiplexing gain
faster than rivals, but on a performance and security "buy now, pay later"
basis.
I like that IPv6 is close enough to IPv4 that I can just run with it. That’s not a drawback. If you understand classless subnetting you can work with Ipv6.
May all your intentional semantics become operational,
Martin
I didn’t find it all that hard to become operational. Not everything I have at work does IPv6, but that’s not really a requirement, is it?
I don’t care enough for backwards compatability with IPv4, actually, I’m really glad it isn’t so failure states are much easier to diagnose. I can see how IPv4.2 SP2 would have subtle issues with IPv4.3 SP1, but there is a hot fix for that, but not for your model. SOL.
Not very different if I must say.
Cheers,
Seth
A thought exercise for folks that think we need more network bits or fewer host bits or whatever...
If you went from 64/64 to 96/32, what would you do with all those additional network numbers?
Would you still assign /48s to end-sites or would you move that down to /80?
If you'd move that to /80, then do you really expect a need for more than 281,474,976,710,656 end sites?
Consider this... The world population is 7.1 billion, and expected 10.1 billion by 2100 (UN estimates).
Let's figure each person needs an end site for their place of business, their two cars, their home, their vacation home, and just for good measure, let's double that to be ultra-conservative. That's 10 end-sites per person or 101 billion end sites.
281,474 billion - 101 billion = 281,373 billion remaining /48s.
Of course, since we're giving ISPs /32s, let's assume that each ISP serves only 256 customers and that we therefore have a 256x inefficiency.
That means we would burn up 25,856 /48 equivalents, leaving only 255,618 extra /48s lying around.
Owen
IPv6 will never become the defacto standard until the vast majority of
users have access to IPv6 connectivity.
How many users have access to IPv6 connectivity?
Since this is NANOG, let's talk about North America.
Canada is way behind, just 0.4% deployment.
The U.S. is one of the top countries, in both number of users and number
of top web sites.
Three of the big four U.S. ISPs have double-digit deployment. It's not the
"vast majority" yet, because:
1. Older modems don't support IPv6 (older than, what, 2008?). As those
churn, counts will rise.
2. Older gateways, especially consumer-owned retail devices, don't support
IPv6. Churn would help, if new retail gateways supported IPv6.
3. The <10% of people with MacOS use IPv6 half the time (more or less)
that it's available.
I can't find statements right now, but I think those big three are all
90% deployed, if you don't count rolling trucks to replace modems. The
number of IPv6-capable users is several times higher than the number of
people actually using IPv6, and I don't know why.
Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile have great IPv6 deployments, too, maybe a
couple more years for older handsets to age out. Still, >50% of VzW LTE
devices use IPv6 now.
Everything I have at the colo is dual stacked, but I can't reach my own
systems via IPv6 because my business class Verizon Fios connection is
IPv4 *only*.
Well there's your problem.
Yes, Comcast is in the process of rolling out IPv6, but my
Comcast circuit in Washington DC is IPv4 only. And I'd suspect that
everyone with Time Warner, AT&T, Cox, etc are all in the same boat.
I think all of those companies offer IPv6 on their business-only services
(e.g., fiber, ethernet, etc.). For access methods shared with residential
users (i.e., DOCSIS, DSL), it's not rolled out yet. . . RSN.
Whether the reason for the lack of IPv6 deployment is laziness or an
intentional omission on the part of large ISPs to protect their income
from leasing IPv4 addresses
ISPs want to protect their income by continuing to turn up services.
Lee
Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile have great IPv6 deployments, too, maybe a
couple more years for older handsets to age out. Still, >50% of VzW LTE
devices use IPv6 now.
ISTR that every VZW LTE device is IPv6 ready/capable/connected, and that it
is ~%50 of the _traffic_ that is IPv6 today.
>
>Everything I have at the colo is dual stacked, but I can't reach my own
>systems via IPv6 because my business class Verizon Fios connection is
>IPv4 *only*.Well there's your problem.
Yeah, Verizon and VZW are not the same animal ... FiOS *needs* to get their
IPv6 house in order.
Anyone have any information on that front ...?
> Yes, Comcast is in the process of rolling out IPv6, but my
>Comcast circuit in Washington DC is IPv4 only. And I'd suspect that
>everyone with Time Warner, AT&T, Cox, etc are all in the same boat.I think all of those companies offer IPv6 on their business-only services
(e.g., fiber, ethernet, etc.). For access methods shared with residential
users (i.e., DOCSIS, DSL), it's not rolled out yet. . . RSN.
I believe Comcast has completed something like 90%+ of their IPv6 rollout,
nationwide. Maybe more ...
*(My residential circuit and business circuit, in different parts of
Northern VA, are both native IPv6 out of the box.)*
/TJ
2. Older gateways, especially consumer-owned retail devices, don't support
IPv6. Churn would help, if new retail gateways supported IPv6.
Several do now. What are $CABLECO, $CE_STORES, etc. doing to make sure consumers choose these or at least realize the consequences of failing to choose them?
Owen
http://www.timewarnercable.com/en/residential-home/support/topics/internet/
buy-your-modem.html
http://mydeviceinfo.comcast.net/
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20140107006526/en/CEA-Selects-Safe-Dr
iving-IPv6-Implementation-Standards#.U6HuqS_9q_s
However, I also don't think consumer education is the answer:
http://www.wleecoyote.com/blog/consumeraction.htm
Summary: Until it is perfectly clear why a consumer needs IPv6, and what
they need to do about it, consumer education will only cause fear and
frustration, which will not be helpful. This is a technology problem, not
a feature problem, and consumers shouldn't have to select which Internet
to be on.
Lee