Search RPD Archives
[rpd] A typical conversation with a service provider on v6
mark.tinka at seacom.mu
Mon Jun 16 20:56:10 UTC 2014
On Monday, June 16, 2014 05:34:41 PM Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> I am sure anyone would agree with this, the reality
> however is that the margin for now is quite wide and
> ISPs who are meant to reduce the distance to getting to
> such promise land (where v6 networks is > v4) are not
Indeed, and what I keep alluding to is that market forces
will deal with that gap. Either those ISP's will get the
fire on their behinds to close the gap, or the market will
force them out of business.
> And that is my point; end users are ready to receive v4
> or v6 (just like facebook servers nodes are ready) and
> so they don't have anything to worry about.
A number of mobile phone OS's have various IPv6 issues
that still need addressing (no pun intended).
But that is beside the point...
> Those who
> need to worry (and who are actually not) are the
> "network service providers". What we find now is that
> end-users are the ones trying to move the ISP which
> should actually be the other way round.
I don't know of markets where basic Internet users are
driving demand for IPv6 (power users, like you and I,
of course), because they just don't care.
> On a lighter
> note, i also don't see facebook going native v6 soon
> because no content provider wants to take the frog jump
> especially when he knows that the landing ground is not
> as soft with v6 users ;)
[tinka at nms ~]$ traceroute6 -I www.facebook.com
traceroute6 to star.c10r.facebook.com (2a03:2880:f00a:501:face:b00c:0:1) from 2c0f:feb0:9:1::2, 64 hops max, 16 byte packets
1 ge-0-1-0-210.jnb6-201-access-1.mpls.seacomnet.com 0.464 ms 0.246 ms 0.202 ms
2 xe-9-0-0.jnb6-201-access-3.mpls.seacomnet.com 0.497 ms 0.236 ms 0.210 ms
3 xe-10-0-0.mtz6-201-access-3.mpls.seacomnet.com 10.637 ms 10.539 ms 10.515 ms
4 xe-11-0-0.mba6-201-access-1.mpls.seacomnet.com 47.353 ms 47.181 ms 47.129 ms
5 xe-0-1-0.mba6-201-access-3.mpls.seacomnet.com 47.437 ms 47.345 ms 47.179 ms
6 xe-3-0-0.lon6-201-access-3.mpls.seacomnet.com 1541.589 ms 2892.580 ms 714.738 ms
7 xe-0-0-1-0.pp6-01-lhr.uk.seacomnet.com 177.241 ms 177.187 ms 177.186 ms
8 2001:7f8:4::80a6:1 177.496 ms 177.492 ms 177.500 ms
9 ae1.bb01.lhr2.tfbnw.net 177.650 ms 177.539 ms 177.528 ms
10 ae0.pr02.lhr2.tfbnw.net 177.703 ms 177.714 ms 178.663 ms
11 po126.msw01.06.lhr2.tfbnw.net 177.958 ms 177.965 ms 177.964 ms
12 edge-star6-shv-06-lhr2.facebook.com 177.452 ms 177.469 ms 177.456 ms
[tinka at nms ~]$
Facebook's main web site has been dual-stacked for a
while now. They aren't the only ones.
> > Mmm....i think it does, so can you at Seacom decide as
> > a matter of policy
> not to peer with provider that does not also provide v6?
No, we can't, because we are a profit-making organization,
like the majority of ISP's around the world. We are here to
serve our customers, and not use them as examples.
A peer's inability to support IPv6 is not my problem. It
is theirs. And as I do not know the inner workings of their
organization, who am I to judge?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
More information about the RPD