spurring transition to ipv6 -- make it faster

We've had one presentation on the "unfairness" of p2p traffic, which
(the presenter says) will eventually swamp us.

Then just now, we had the presentation & subsequent discussion re: ipv6

Just wondering: what if we gave ipv6 traffic "mucho priority" over ipv4
traffic, then tell our user communities that ipv6 provides a better
quality network experience, including (hopefully) faster page loads, &
lower video game pings?

With such policies in place, folks wouldn't want to stay with the "old,
slow" v4 traffic...and could be a significant selling point.

After all, if most p2p traffic is v4, prioritizing ipv6 (as a general concept) should improve the user experience.

Anyway, was just an idea, please pardon me if this has been discussed
before, or sounds nutty...



Scott Doty wrote:

After all, if most p2p traffic is v4, prioritizing ipv6 (as a general
concept) should improve the user experience.

How long do you think it will take for the P2P software authors to
transition over to IPv6? I'll bet that P2P users will be a lot more
likely to use IPv6 over Aunt May checking her email once a day.


Actually, I seem to recall some postings to the list stating that many of the popular bittorrent clients already do IPv6 if available. So that would seem to be a good recipe for allowing P2P users to prioritize ahead of regular traffic.

- S

I think by the time we've put carrier NATs everywhere the users will
notice that all by themselves, and we won't need to tell them anything.

    - mark

Sorry, it happened already.

Presentation I gave at APNIC26 on the subject:

A Teredo/6to4 relay in Finland operated by CSC/FUNET:

Note the massive increase of traffic. It ramps up the *day* uTorrent 1.8 came out.

I have long said:
1) IPv4 will continue to exist for web/email/etc. servers.
2) When ISPs run out of IPv4 space and start NATing their customers, IPv6 will become the new way to do applications that require end-to-end. This is *why* Teredo exists - so Microsoft applications that require end-to-end can get it, without having to implement a NAT traversal stack in each and every app. Teredo is now available on most OSes.
3) (2) is clearly happening already, with bit torrent applications. It's an easy way to do NAT traversal for free.
4) When IPv6 is widely enough supported, then maybe someone will run a web/email/etc. server on IPv6 only.

There is a lot of work to attempt to keep IPv4 end-to-end alive when SP-NAT happens. Personally, I think attempting to prolong IPv4 end-to-end is a waste of time when IPv6 does it already, and all these proposals require applications to be updated to support dynamic ports and things. If you're updating the application, just make it support IPv6. For most applications this is trivial.

If P2P became IPV6, and therefore universally endpoint addressable, and
therefore seeded by every download, as opposed to solely seeded by those
who have enough clue to configure the inbound ports through their IPV4
NAT, then the bandwidth problem should solve itself, at least for the
widely popular downloads.

Assuming every downloader could also seed, for the popular stuff, the
traffic would be primarily local, which is not where the bottleneck is
in most cases.

Of course, this is assuming that the reason the SPs are opposed to P2P
isn't related to their desire to derive revenue from the content that is
non-ratable if delivered over P2P, but that is a different topic.

From: Nathan Ward [mailto:nanog@daork.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 3:33 PM
To: Niall Donegan
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: spurring transition to ipv6 -- make it faster

Scott Doty wrote:

After all, if most p2p traffic is v4, prioritizing ipv6 (as a


It's a good point that you brought up.

Even though we already have IPv6 P2P (Nathan's post explains this in more detail), it would still be quite interesting to provide IPv6 as a higher class of traffic within service provider networks.

Quite likely 6to4 relays and native IPv6 traffic is best effort today (ie. the same as IPv4 inet). I think operators would need to consider the financial implications of placing this traffic ahead of their current revenue generating services. Possibly instead of prioritizing the traffic, if the ISPs that normally police traffic from CE's could provide a higher policed rate for IPv6 traffic, so the experience is significantly different even in times where there is no congestion.


As long as none of your ipv6 traffic transits across anything from
British Telecom
as it is not supported on their 21st Century Network



As long as none of your ipv6 traffic transits across anything
from British Telecom as it is not supported on their 21st
Century Network


The distinction between supported, and unsupported is that when
something is supported by a company it means that the company has
explicitly agreed to provide the supported feature and is getting
paid for it. This is marketing/sales lingo.

Given that NANOG is a technical forum, I don't know why you bring
this up. Clearly we do technically support IPv6 on 21CN because we
have customers using it. That's how we discovered a Cisco bug that
causes certain IPv6 packets to be mangled, and like all bugs that
ISPs find in vendor equipment, it is reported and will eventually
get fixed.

This illustrates why it is important to deploy IPv6 now, even if it
is only for technically clued-in customers who will participate in
bug finding, etc.

There are a lot of technologies involved here, and clearly we need
to exercise some of the access technologies like L2TP a lot more to
shake out the bugs and get them fixed. That isn't something that any
one ISP can do on their own. It requires every ISP to take IPv6
enough that they deploy it in their labs and offices, then report every
bug and issue to vendors asking them to make sure these things are fixed
before the end of 2010.

This is how the IPv4 Internet managed to scale through a period of 1500%

annual growth. It was the cooperation between ISPs, vendors and
mediated by NANOG as a forum, that enabled the Internet to become as
important as it is today.

--Michael Dillon

Yeah, except Teredo and 6to4 solve that problem for us today and are enabled by default on Vista and are used by p2p applications.