Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: NANOG: users

Is v6 as important as v4? Of course not [was: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering]

 

 

NANOG users RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


patrick at ianai

Oct 13, 2009, 9:40 PM

Post #1 of 11 (726 views)
Permalink
Is v6 as important as v4? Of course not [was: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering]

On Oct 12, 2009, at 5:23 PM, Randy Bush wrote:

>>> sure would be nice if there was a diagnosis before the lynching
>> If this happened in v4, would customers care 'why' it happened?
>> Obviously not.
>> Why should v6 be any different? It either is or is not production
>> ready. I'm interested in HE's view on that.
>
> many of us are interested in diagnosis. few in your lynch rope.

I think you are stretching things to make a pithy post. More
importantly, you are missing the point.

For the v6 'Net to be used, customers - you know the people who pay
for those router things and that fiber stuff and all our salaries and
such - need to feel some comfort around it actually working. This did
not help that comfort level. And I believe it is valid to ask about it.

Diagnosis is good. Fortunately, anyone who cares knows exactly what
happened on a technical level - HE has no v6 transit and does not peer
with Telia; Telia had C&W transit, then they didn't, now they do.
Took less time to 'diagnose' than your one-liners took to write. Were
you actually interested in diagnostics, you would have spent some time
looking as opposed to trying to be pithy to 10K of your not-so-closest
buddies.

Unfortunately, and you damned well know this, we are not going to get
a /real/ diagnosis out of a busted peering relationship. Especially
when one party is an incumbent telco. HE typically - and properly -
will not discuss such relationships (modulo Mike's Cogent post, which
even he says is unusual). And Telia won't discuss squat, full stop.
So why it happened is a mystery, and will be for, well, ever.
Diagnosis ends.

However, the question still stands about the stability, and therefor,
utility of the v6 'Net. Is it still some bastard child, some beta
test, some side project? Or is it ready to have _revenue_producing_
traffic put on it? When a network as solid and customer-oriented as
HE can have a long outage to such a large network as Telia, I submit
it is not. I know, everyone is shocked. But operationally speaking,
this matters. We can either say "but it was just v6", or we can think
about how to not have this happen again. The former leads no where.
Perhaps we should choose the latter instead of making pithy posts?

If that is a "lynch rope", I will not bother arguing with you. Pigs &
mud & all that. But that doesn't make it wrong, or irrelevant.


In summary, we have the standard Chicken & Egg problem. No one cares
about v6, so no one puts anything important on v6, so no one cares
about v6. HE was trying harder to break that vicious cycle than
anyone else, yet even they do not come close to supporting v6 as much
as they support v4. Sad times for the future of the Internet if we
all need to use v6 Real Soon Now.

I asked for HE's view on that. Would you mind explaining why you
don't want to hear it?

--
TTFN,
patrick

P.S. Being a curmudgeon is useful from time to time. But only if you
are, well, being useful.


mleber at he

Oct 14, 2009, 2:21 AM

Post #2 of 11 (687 views)
Permalink
Re: Is v6 as important as v4? Of course not [was: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering] [In reply to]

Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> For the v6 'Net to be used, customers - you know the people who pay for
> those router things and that fiber stuff and all our salaries and such -
> need to feel some comfort around it actually working. This did not help
> that comfort level. And I believe it is valid to ask about it.

That is entirely correct and I'm glad you asked that question! ;)

Let me explain:

(Lots of truisms here, bear with me!)

IPv6 is newer than IPv4.

As IPv6 is newer than IPv4, the equipment to support IPv6 natively is
newer than legacy equipment already deployed that only supports IPv4.

As the equipment that supports native IPv6 is newer, there are fewer
core networks that run native IPv6.

As these new IPv6 networks are deployed they are growing and developing.

(Like neurons forming connections, the IPv6 network is.)

Deployment of IPv6 in the core has been growing year to year, with that
growth accelerating. In fact, I'd tell trend watchers of business
econometrics the accelerating growth curve both represents something
important happening right now and something that is likely to have real
world implications for Internet infrastructure companies in the future:

http://bgp.potaroo.net/cgi-bin/plot?file=%2fvar%2fdata%2fbgp%2fv6%2fas6447%2fbgp%2dactive%2etxt&descr=Active%20BGP%20entries%20%28FIB%29&ylabel=Active%20BGP%20entries%20%28FIB%29&with=step

(Short url: http://tiny.cc/An6fl )

If you are in the connectivity business, you can add a caption to this
graph of your choosing:

"Ignore at your own peril."

Or (I like this one):

"I see opportunity."

> However, the question still stands about the stability, and therefor,
> utility of the v6 'Net. Is it still some bastard child, some beta test,
> some side project?

As you know, the IPv4 Internet of today is a product of the hard work of
people of yore (ok well, more seriously, a large number of the people on
this list and at networks around the world).

The nature of things is that the coherent shared illusion of a single
Internet routing table is the result of a rough consensus produced by
years and years and years of accumulated business relationships and
network engineer routing policy configurations.

IPv6 is going through that phase right now, at accelerated pace.

Perhaps geometric growth is not good enough for you as a business
person. Perhaps where we are on the curve is not good enough for you
yet. Perhaps you'd like to retire before working with another protocol.

I hereby apologize to you on behalf of IPv6 that it has not had the same
three decades of deployment and experimentation as IPv4. ;)

IPv6 is not going to spring into existence as a fully complete global
network to replace IPv4 on a specific flag day (December 21st 2012?).

IPv6 will grow in deployment at the same time the Internet continues to
work, at what appears to be on a geometric growth curve, due to some
reasons a business economist can write a paper about. Network effect?
Risk avoidance due to IPv4 run out? Risk avoidance due to technology
shift? Yukon gold rush? The after the fact result of careful planning
by thoughtful people started years earlier? Or perhaps, the projected
functional economic value of IP addresses?

> Or is it ready to have _revenue_producing_ traffic
> put on it?

IPv6 is production for some value of the word production. We see
traffic around 1.5 Gbps, peaks at 2 Gbps and growing...

Perhaps this says something about the amount of traffic that will be
seen when it gets used widely.

1000 times as much? (Our guess) What's your guess?

Warning! If you pick a low number you are saying that IPv6 is in
widespread production use right now. :-P

> In summary, we have the standard Chicken & Egg problem. No one cares
> about v6,

speak for yourself (introduce into evidence exhibit 1: the graph linked
to above, exhibit 2: we note how part of the original poster's problem
got fixed that day).

> so no one puts anything important on v6,

speak for yourself (reference real traffic above).

Once upon a time, something called IPv4 was invented, and some people
created hardware for it, wrote software for it, tried it out, wrote some
papers, wrote some RFCs (after writing working code, the way it should
be done LOL), and then experimented some more. There were lots of
problems that got solved, things that worked in real life in spite of
theoretical problems, and bugs that got fixed. Some companies got
created... blah blah blah.

> Sad times for the future of the Internet if we all need to use v6
> Real Soon Now.

Or, expect real freaking huge opportunity and dislocation ahead.

Of course, this dislocation may only affect some specific players and
companies and industries. For the regular user it could just happen
transparently that by the time they get their next computer with
Microsoft Windows 9 or Ubuntu Quick Quagga... it just works.

Imagine, what would it be like if all the core network operators had to
figure out who get Internet connectivity from again. Imagine, if they
had to setup all their peering and transit sessions again because of
their existing telecommunications vendors only some of them decided to
try out this new Internet thing. (Deja vu yet?)

Well you don't have to imagine! That is what is happening right now!

We are talking about a major sea change here. How long might the
central wave of this sea change take to pass? 5 years?

To come up with a wildy guestimated date, you might average the time to:

* Replace 60 percent of home computers (count existing Windows Vista and
Macintosh OS X computers towards this total, since they already just
magically work with IPv6 if you have IPv6 on your LAN).

* Replace 60 percent of residential CPE. (Base it on customer churn,
CPE failure, and technology upgrades.)

* Replace 60 percent of core routers.

Why use 60 percent as a milestone?

Because it represents more than half.

Why does more than half matter?

Because we could use it to make a nice graph to project cross over for
the prevalence of IPv6 connectivity vs IPv4. In most companies I've
been at, this sort of graph is used to predict when to stop spending
additional money on the item that will not be relevant to the company's
future sources of revenue. In otherwords, 60 percent is the point of no
return because at that point capital allocation budgets are co-opted.

BTW, if you plan on getting started after that ship has sailed, well...

> I asked for HE's view on that.

My pleasure! :)

Mike.


randy at psg

Oct 14, 2009, 6:32 AM

Post #3 of 11 (682 views)
Permalink
Re: Is v6 as important as v4? Of course not [was: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering] [In reply to]

> I think you are stretching things to make a pithy post. More
> importantly, you are missing the point.

and hundreds of words do not cover that you accused HE of something for
which you had no basis in fact. type less, analyse and think more.

randy


patrick at ianai

Oct 14, 2009, 8:11 AM

Post #4 of 11 (675 views)
Permalink
Re: Is v6 as important as v4? Of course not [was: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering] [In reply to]

On Oct 14, 2009, at 9:32 AM, Randy Bush wrote:

>> I think you are stretching things to make a pithy post. More
>> importantly, you are missing the point.
>
> and hundreds of words do not cover that you accused HE of something
> for
> which you had no basis in fact. type less, analyse and think more.

I expanded to try and get you to see the point. I obviously failed.
I shall not bother to try again as I'm worried the failure was at
least partially because you would rather be pithy than see the point
not matter how fully explained.

As for facts, there is lots of basis. HE has run a network for
decades and has never let a v4 bifurcation happen so long. Ever.
They've run v6 for a few years yet it happened. Asking the network in
question's view on this perfectly reasonable - in fact the opposite
would be unreasonable.

As for accusations, I challenge you to show where I accused them of
anything.

Typing less does not mean you are actually thinking. You should try
the latter before your next pithy post. Or at least read the post to
which you are replying.

--
TTFN,
patrick


randy at psg

Oct 14, 2009, 8:47 AM

Post #5 of 11 (671 views)
Permalink
Re: Is v6 as important as v4? Of course not [was: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering] [In reply to]

> As for accusations, I challenge you to show where I accused them of
> anything.

> From: patrick [at] ianai (Patrick W. Gilmore)
> Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:09:58 -0400
> Subject: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering
> In-Reply-To: <a05493650910120441i27550f17qaa7d3377824afdda [at] mail>
> References: <a05493650910120441i27550f17qaa7d3377824afdda [at] mail>
> Message-ID: <0A37FD5D-D9D1-4D89-AC8A-105612BB8E39 [at] ianai>
>
> ...
>
> It is sad to see that networks which used to care about connectivity,
> peering, latency, etc., when they are small change their mind when
> they are "big". The most recent example is Cogent, an open peer who
> decided to turn down peers when they reached transit free status.

> I never thought HE would be one of those networks.


patrick at ianai

Oct 14, 2009, 8:49 AM

Post #6 of 11 (684 views)
Permalink
Re: Is v6 as important as v4? Of course not [was: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering] [In reply to]

You really can't read, can you?

And I spoke to Martin about it personally. If he's OK with it,
perhaps you should clam down?

--
TTFN,
patrick


On Oct 14, 2009, at 11:47 AM, Randy Bush wrote:

>> As for accusations, I challenge you to show where I accused them of
>> anything.
>
>> From: patrick [at] ianai (Patrick W. Gilmore)
>> Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:09:58 -0400
>> Subject: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering
>> In-Reply-To: <a05493650910120441i27550f17qaa7d3377824afdda [at] mail
>> >
>> References: <a05493650910120441i27550f17qaa7d3377824afdda [at] mail
>> >
>> Message-ID: <0A37FD5D-D9D1-4D89-AC8A-105612BB8E39 [at] ianai>
>>
>> ...
>>
>> It is sad to see that networks which used to care about connectivity,
>> peering, latency, etc., when they are small change their mind when
>> they are "big". The most recent example is Cogent, an open peer who
>> decided to turn down peers when they reached transit free status.
>
>> I never thought HE would be one of those networks.

> From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick [at] ianai>
> Date: October 12, 2009 12:49:02 PM EDT
> To: NANOG list <nanog [at] nanog>
> Cc: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick [at] ianai>
> Subject: Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering

> To be clear, I was not trying to imply that HE has a closed policy.
> But I can see how people might think that given my Cogent example.
> My apologies to HE.
>
> And to be fair, I'm pounding on HE because they've always cared
> about their customers. I expect Telia to care more about their own
> ego than their customers' connectivity. So banging on them is
> nonproductive.
>
>
> In summary: HE has worked tirelessly and mostly thanklessly to
> promote v6. They have done more to bring v6 to the forefront than
> any other network. But at the end of day, despite HE's valiant
> effort on v6, v6 has all the problems of v4 on the backbone, PLUS
> growing pains. Which means it is difficult to rely on it, as v4 has
> enough dangers on its own.
>
> Anyway, I have confidence HE is trying to fix this. But I still
> think the fact that it happened - whatever the reason - is a black
> eye for the v6 "Internet", whatever the hell that is.


mleber at he

Oct 14, 2009, 8:53 AM

Post #7 of 11 (674 views)
Permalink
Re: Is v6 as important as v4? Of course not [was: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering] [In reply to]

Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> As for facts, there is lots of basis. HE has run a network for decades
> and has never let a v4 bifurcation happen so long. Ever. They've run
> v6 for a few years yet it happened.

News flash, IPv6 is new.

News flash, every single IPv6 network that gets configured that
previously did not exist is new.

News flash, when an IPv6 newbie configures IPv6 for the first time they
have zero IPv6 BGP peers and transits until they configure them.

News flash, some of these IPv6 newbies will even commit the error of not
bothering to establish much IPv6 peering or decent IPv6 transit, before
adding a AAAA record for their main website, ensuring that it is broken
for the majority of the existing IPv6 Internet.

News flash, newbies make mistakes, insist up is down, blue is green etc.
This is called learning if they fix it, and stupidity otherwise.

News flash, Hurricane will do everything possible to reach these newbie
networks where ever they are in the world, some of them rather large,
and try to help them (sometimes in spite of themselves), however some of
them will insist on breaking themselves anyway!

It's just going to happen and there is nothing you can do to stop them.

Customers will vote with dollars (or whatever currency), problem solved.

Mike.


regnauld at catpipe

Oct 14, 2009, 8:58 AM

Post #8 of 11 (673 views)
Permalink
Re: Is v6 as important as v4? Of course not [was: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering] [In reply to]

Patrick W. Gilmore (patrick) writes:
> You really can't read, can you?
>
> And I spoke to Martin about it personally. If he's OK with it,
> perhaps you should clam down?

I know Randy to be a bit taciturn and hard to get through to sometimes,
but never of being a shellfish.

P.


randy at psg

Oct 14, 2009, 9:10 AM

Post #9 of 11 (683 views)
Permalink
Re: Is v6 as important as v4? Of course not [was: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering] [In reply to]

>> You really can't read, can you?
>> And I spoke to Martin about it personally. If he's OK with it,
>> perhaps you should clam down?
> I know Randy to be a bit taciturn and hard to get through to sometimes,
> but never of being a shellfish.

i am from the pacific northwest. so shellfish is good. it's endless
aggressive/defensive bs that is harder to let go by without calling it.

randy


davet1 at gmail

Oct 14, 2009, 9:19 AM

Post #10 of 11 (672 views)
Permalink
Re: Is v6 as important as v4? Of course not [was: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering] [In reply to]

Randy Bush wrote:
>> As for accusations, I challenge you to show where I accused them of
>> anything.
>>
>
>
>> From: patrick [at] ianai (Patrick W. Gilmore)
>> Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:09:58 -0400
>> Subject: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering
>> In-Reply-To: <a05493650910120441i27550f17qaa7d3377824afdda [at] mail>
>> References: <a05493650910120441i27550f17qaa7d3377824afdda [at] mail>
>> Message-ID: <0A37FD5D-D9D1-4D89-AC8A-105612BB8E39 [at] ianai>
>>
>> ...
>>
>> It is sad to see that networks which used to care about connectivity,
>> peering, latency, etc., when they are small change their mind when
>> they are "big". The most recent example is Cogent, an open peer who
>> decided to turn down peers when they reached transit free status.
>>
>
>
>> I never thought HE would be one of those networks.
>>
>
>
The only thing Patrick is guilty of is not providing enough context.

The party at fault here is Cogent. If you re-read the entire thread and
speak with Mike Leber, you'll find that HE offered peering and/or
transit, for free, to Cogent - like they do to everyone else, and Cogent
didn't take it, providing for the segmentation we saw.

-Dave


charles at thewybles

Oct 14, 2009, 12:50 PM

Post #11 of 11 (676 views)
Permalink
Re: Is v6 as important as v4? Of course not [was: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering] [In reply to]

On 10/14/09 8:11 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:

> Typing less does not mean you are actually thinking. You should try the
> latter before your next pithy post. Or at least read the post to which
> you are replying.
>

Now now boys and girls. Settle down and be civil. :)

NANOG users RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.