https://blogs.akamai.com/2016/06/preparing-for-ipv6-only-mobile-networks-why-and-how.html
Wherein akamai explains a detailed study showing ipv6 is "well
over 10%" faster than ipv4 on mobile, and they reference corroborating
studies from Linkedin and Facebook.
Fair to ask your business 1) does mobile performance matter 2) are you
taking advantage of this 10% page load speedup that ipv6 provides?
srs question: "What percentage of the mobile world prefers v6 over v4?"
I ask because perhaps the market for your app is such that v6 is actually a
hinderance to the userbase... (or is slower in your market)
Are there more holistic studies about this?
Just a thought - ipv4 includes older more rural connections such as 1M DSL
out in the sticks. That weighs the average connection time down. v6 being
capable on modern 4G wireless and fiber connections makes the average
faster.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
CenturyTel in this area provides IPv6 to DSL customers.
Thank you,
- Nich
Just a thought - ipv4 includes older more rural connections such as 1M DSL
out in the sticks. That weighs the average connection time down. v6 being
capable on modern 4G wireless and fiber connections makes the average
faster.
Akamai, linkedin, and facebook are not lightweights when it comes to data
analysis. Meaning, they know about selection basis. I'll also mention
that google has v6 as well.
FTFA, Akamai states they isolated dual-stack iphones on vzw and ran
parallel RUM v4 and v6 tests. I believe FB did the same thing and
presented the data at nanog 64
CB
Just an ancillary thought.
Maybe we should let people believe that IPv6 is faster than IPv4 even if objectively that isn’t true. Perhaps that will help speed along the adoption process.
Says the company that consistently refused to dual-stack its customers by
default...
Rubens
do we REALLY think it's still just /marketing problem/ that keeps v6
deployment on the slow-boat?
YMMV, but the majority of my customers are ipv6. And for those customers
with ipv6, 73% of their traffic is e2e IPv6.
I agree that there are many dark corners of Santa Cruz without IPv6, but
the story is: the whales of content and eyeballs are on IPv6, and it is
cheaper (no cgn) and faster (RUM data) than the ipv4 alternative.
Does it really matter what single digit % of Alexa 1M has a AAAA?
Maybe we should let people believe that IPv6 is faster than IPv4 even if
objectively that isn’t true. Perhaps that will help speed along the
adoption process.do we REALLY think it's still just /marketing problem/ that keeps v6
deployment on the slow-boat?YMMV, but the majority of my customers are ipv6. And for those customers
with ipv6, 73% of their traffic is e2e IPv6.
I understand that tmo's (us at least) network is v6 native to the
handset... my question was really trying to point out that even if tmo is
100M customers, there are ~3x that on sprint/vz/att/etc ... so just in the
US is 25% repreesntative? and outside the US what does the mobile address
family spread look like?
then, what if the resource being accessed to by the mobile users in
zimbabwe are local to zimbabwe and there's only ipv4 versions of that
mobile service... the reasons to go v6 on both sides aren't as clear. (to
me)
I agree that there are many dark corners of Santa Cruz without IPv6, but
the story is: the whales of content and eyeballs are on IPv6, and it is
cheaper (no cgn) and faster (RUM data) than the ipv4 alternative.
I get why things look better in the cases of FB/TMO (as one example)...
but selling 'you should ipv6 because FB/TMO is better!' isn't really true
all ways.
Does it really matter what single digit % of Alexa 1M has a AAAA?
:) I have no idea...
Yes.
Yes.
REALLY??? I mean REALLY? people that operate networks haven't haven't had
beaten into their heads:
1) cgn is expensive
2) there is no more ipv4 (not large amounts for large deployments of new
thingies)
3) there really isn't much else except the internet for global networking
and reachabilty
4) ipv6 'works' on almost all gear you'd deploy in your network
and content side folks haven't had beaten into their heads:
1) ipv6 is where the network is going, do it now so you aren't caught
with your pants (proverbial!) down
2) more and more customers are going to have ipv6 and not NAT'd ipv4...
you can better target, better identify and better service v6 vs v4 users.
3) adding ipv6 transport really SHOULD be as simple as adding a AAAA
I figure at this point, in 2016, the reasons aren't "marketing" but either:
a) turning the ship is hard (vz's continual lack of v6 on wireline
services...)
b) can't spend the opex/capex while keeping the current ship afloat
c) meh
I can't see that 'marketing' is really going to matter... I mean, if you
haven't gotten the message now:
http://i.imgur.com/8vZOU0T.gif
I would be surprised if more than 10% - 20% of networks have received effective marketing on IPv6.
Look at how many network operators that don't "get" basic network security alerts like "There is a long since patched vulnerability being actively exploited on the Internet right now. Your equipment will reset to default in 18.5 hours of infection. Please patch now." Equipment resetting to default is a metric crap ton more serious than IPv6 implementation and people don't take that seriously.
Think outside of the NANOG bubble.
(I *REALLY* hate the way this list replies to the individual and not the list... and doesn't have a bracketed name in the subject.)
Warning: Hat = Enterprise Network Admin
Sarcasm = High
In a message written on Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 01:31:43PM -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote:
REALLY??? I mean REALLY? people that operate networks haven't haven't had
beaten into their heads:
1) cgn is expensive
Wazzat? Isn't the C for Carrier? So, not my problem.
2) there is no more ipv4 (not large amounts for large deployments of new
thingies)
I got a /24 from my provider years ago. I only use half of it. If we
needed to economize we could probably go ahead and deploy name based
virtual hosting, the server guys have talked about that for years. I
can't imagine I will ever run out of IPv4.
3) there really isn't much else except the internet for global networking
and reachabilty
IPv4 currently has more reach than IPv6? Didn't you just tell me people
aren't deploying IPv6.
4) ipv6 'works' on almost all gear you'd deploy in your network
I can't find it in the docs for our IBM Token Ring switch that connects
the payroll mainframe to the ERP NEC box. That's our only critical
application.
and content side folks haven't had beaten into their heads:
1) ipv6 is where the network is going, do it now so you aren't caught
with your pants (proverbial!) down
I thought all the providers were deploying that CGN thing so IPv4
kept working. They would never leave us high and dry, right?
2) more and more customers are going to have ipv6 and not NAT'd ipv4...
you can better target, better identify and better service v6 vs v4 users.
I was told DNS64 fixed that problem, and carriers would have to deploy
it as a transition strategy.
3) adding ipv6 transport really SHOULD be as simple as adding a AAAA
My IPAM software doesn't have AAAA support because I haven't bought a
support contract for it for 10 years. Do I really need to buy new
IPAM software?
I figure at this point, in 2016, the reasons aren't "marketing" but either:
a) turning the ship is hard (vz's continual lack of v6 on wireline
services...)
b) can't spend the opex/capex while keeping the current ship afloat
c) meh
Actually it's more my boss has 100 "critical" initiatives and staff
to do 20 of them, and IPv6 isn't even on the list. Our planning window
is crisis to crisis, err, I mean quarter to quarter. Will my web site
go down this quarter if I don't deploy it? Otherwise we can put that
off.
Sadly, I wish all these answers were some sort of carachture of reality,
but I think they are too many folks reality.
Maybe we should let people believe that IPv6 is faster than IPv4 even
if objectively that isn’t true. Perhaps that will help speed along the
adoption process.do we REALLY think it's still just /marketing problem/ that keeps v6
deployment on the slow-boat?YMMV, but the majority of my customers are ipv6. And for those customers
with ipv6, 73% of their traffic is e2e IPv6.I understand that tmo's (us at least) network is v6 native to the
handset... my question was really trying to point out that even if tmo is
100M customers, there are ~3x that on sprint/vz/att/etc ... so just in the
US is 25% repreesntative?
Sprint, vzw, and at&t all have ipv6 enabled by default on many handsets. I
believe the samsung s6 was the first to launch on all national carrier with
v6 on by default
and outside the US what does the mobile address family spread look like?
Not sure, but v6 does live a dramatic life outside the US too
http://labs.apnic.net/ipv6-measurement/AS/5/5/8/3/6/
then, what if the resource being accessed to by the mobile users in
zimbabwe are local to zimbabwe and there's only ipv4 versions of that
mobile service... the reasons to go v6 on both sides aren't as clear. (to
me)
Afrnic has v4, apnic does not. As with the Jio example in india, networks
need to grow and they cannot do that well with v4. And, the things that
make v4 slow in the USA likely apply elsewhere.
I agree that there are many dark corners of Santa Cruz without IPv6, but
the story is: the whales of content and eyeballs are on IPv6, and it is
cheaper (no cgn) and faster (RUM data) than the ipv4 alternative.I get why things look better in the cases of FB/TMO (as one example)...
but selling 'you should ipv6 because FB/TMO is better!' isn't really true
all ways.
Your network, your problem.
The akamai / fb / linkedin data are just data points. If you are in the
nanog region and want data to show up on mobiles, it is likely 10% faster
if your server has v6.
I have a confession: I don't use IPv6.
I don't use IPv6 at home because:
1. My Verizon FiOS link does not support IPv6.
2. My Cox Cable Internet link does not support IPv6.
3. The colo I tunnel to in order to announce my addresses via BGP does
not support IPv6.
4. IPv6 does not offer me enough value to pony up the $500 initial and
$100/year ARIN fees I would have to pay in order to have parity with
my IPv4 installation, at least not until my other vendors support it.
I don't use IPv6 at work because:
1. My employer moved half of everything to the Amazon cloud. AWS does
not support IPv6.
2. My employer moved the other half of everything to various software
as a service vendors, none of whom implement IPv6.
Marketing problem? If it won't work with -any- of the vendors I do
business with, that's not a marketing problem.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
>> do we REALLY think it's still just /marketing problem/ that keeps v6
>> deployment on the slow-boat?
> Yes.I have a confession: I don't use IPv6.
I don't use IPv6 at home because:
1. My Verizon FiOS link does not support IPv6.
2. My Cox Cable Internet link does not support IPv6.
3. The colo I tunnel to in order to announce my addresses via BGP does
not support IPv6.
4. IPv6 does not offer me enough value to pony up the $500 initial and
$100/year ARIN fees I would have to pay in order to have parity with
my IPv4 installation, at least not until my other vendors support it.I don't use IPv6 at work because:
1. My employer moved half of everything to the Amazon cloud. AWS does
not support IPv6.
2. My employer moved the other half of everything to various software
as a service vendors, none of whom implement IPv6.Marketing problem? If it won't work with -any- of the vendors I do
business with, that's not a marketing problem.Regards,
Bill Herrin
Yes, the data shows your page loads will be 10% slower than other folks.
I am sure you don't mind
CB
(more, reasonably valid observations elided)
Yes. I had a member of an account team for a networking vendor express
extreme skepticism when discussing IP address plans and work I had done.
When describing why I went with an IPv6 only solution for this setup, he
responded, "Why not just get more IPv4 addresses? Just go back to
IANA[sic] for more if you don't have enough already."
OK, maybe it's not *just* marketing, but marketing (using the term
broadly) is still a very large part of it.
your example sounds like ignorance, not marketing.
No doubt his response was born of ignorance. The correct response
is...well, education, not necessarily marketing...but at the 30k foot
level, they amount to the same thing (thus my parenthetical comment about
using the term "marketing" broadly), as I think the upthread comments were
doing.
