Search RPD Archives
[rpd] RE: [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services to run on IPv6?
Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com
Tue Oct 28 11:29:37 UTC 2014
Laugh, from what you write here, you patently obviously know little about me.
You made a reference to the money being spent to implement v6, I pointed out that the financial constraints in terms of OPEX to do it as we deploy are lower than deploying it as a retro-fit, I stand by that statement.
Secondly, if you have V6 only, you can't communicate to V4 only systems, and vice versa. So yes, dual-stack is the answer and it's what I've been actively doing for years. That does not mean it makes sense to ignore v6 for now and at some vast future date add v6 as an afterthought when you are already in problem mode because you've started to lose access to systems that have gone v6 only.
Thirdly, as for finding solutions to real world problems, I can say very confidently that I know something about the infrastructure and the network deployments going on in Africa (and in particular East and Southern Africa), and I can say that what is being deployed actively and heavily is probably far beyond what you imagine. I merely believe that deploying IPv6 while doing these infrastructure upgrades is a sensible and sane thing to do.
You talk about fiber infrastructure investment and other such investment, so let me enlighten you as to some facts on the African continent.
So far this year:
Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda and Kenya are now on a fiber ring with full redundancy.
Capacity into Uganda through Kenya is now running full DWDM systems with multiple 10G waves
Capacity into Rwanda has been drastically expanded
Metro fiber networks are being actively rolled out (or have been rolled out) in Nairobi, Mombasa, Kampala, Kigali, Kisumu, Nakuru, Eldoret and the list continues.
Undersea capacity is there, we have SEACOM, we have EASSY, we can route around the west coast via WACS, and if Im correct that totals in excess of 10 terabit of capacity.
My employer has publically committed to a further $200 million investment in the next 24 months in infrastructure as well in the region.
Now, considering all of this, as infrastructure is put in place, isn't it the smart choice to roll up to date infrastructure with up to date protocols instead of continuing to deploy legacy v4 that the world at large is being forced to move away from, since it is a dying beast?
This has nothing to do with "what my formal colonial masters" are doing or have done, this is about wanting world class networking on the continent, that is in line with global standards and best practices and protocols. As far as I'm concerned, if Africa gets the opportunity, we should SURPASS the former colonial masters, and if we ever hope to do that, letting ourselves stick with v4 is suicidal.
I would suggest though before you speak out, you actually show a modicum of understanding of what is actually going on on this continent.
From: Malick.Sy at swisscom.com [mailto:Malick.Sy at swisscom.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 2:15 PM
To: Andrew Alston; mark.tinka at seacom.mu
Cc: rpd at afrinic.net; afnog at afnog.org
Subject: Re: [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services to run on IPv6?
Maybe you have not heard of dual stack systems. This has been a reality at OS level (at least on Linux and FreeBSD) for years and all decent network vendors support dual stacks.. RFC 2766 also provides a transalation mechanism for v6 to v4 packets as well, it is possible to tunnel one protocol within another. So, I don't agree that "Because my former colonial master is doing it, I have to do it too" mentality or outlook. We need to take a deep look at what we prioritise.
Solutions should be found for real world problems and issues on the ground, not perceived or imported views of "problems".
Sr. Network Engineer
Swisscom (Switzerland) Ltd.
2, chemin du Pavillon
Case Postale 2200
CH-1211 Genève 2
Desk Phone:+41 227 407 585
Cellular Phone:+ 41 794 426 765
Fax Number: +41 227 740 7542
This message contains confidential or privileged information and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not use, copy, disclose, forward or take any action based on this message or information herein. If you have received this message by error, please advise the sender immediately and delete this message.
On 28/10/2014 11:53, "Andrew Alston" <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
>This is kind of a short sighted view in my opinion. Why you ask?
>Because the rest of the world has to go V6 and V6 doesn't talk to V4,
>unless you want to take a huge step backwards and start running
>translation mechanisms and other dodgy kludges which will further
>degrade the African internet experience.
>Money is being spent on fiber, wimax and all the other things you
>mention, in vast quantities. Infact I would hazard a guess that the
>investment levels into African infrastructure at the moment are
>probably outstripping what is being spent upgrading systems in other
>more developed parts of the world. That should not stop us trying to
>get to a point where the internet in Africa has parity with the rest of
>the world, and parity means we get the V6 in or risk being left behind
>when the rest of the world goes that way (as they have to do, since
>there is no more v4).
>Further to this, it is far cheaper to implement V6 as the
>infrastructure is expanded than have to go back and retrofit, if we
>don't do it now, we'll be facing a HUGE bill later when we're forced to
>do it anyway
>From: Malick.Sy at swisscom.com [mailto:Malick.Sy at swisscom.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 1:21 PM
>To: mark.tinka at seacom.mu; Andrew Alston
>Cc: rpd at afrinic.net; afnog at afnog.org
>Subject: Re: [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services
>to run on IPv6?
>I was wondering, what good business need is there to push IPv6 to the
>network edge, specifically in Africa?
>What would be the direct benefit to the customer or the service
>provider, of investing in configuring, deploying and migrating to v6.
>V4 address depletion is a reality, but in the Africa region, is there
>really a shortage of IP addresses to assign or is there more a lack of
>services to run on these IP addresses? Also, wouldn¹t the effort and
>expense to move to v6 In Africa, be better used, if spent on harnessing
>WiMax? rolling out fibre where possible? I creasing Wifi coverage?
>rolling out DSL/VDSL/xDSL? Increasing peering points? creating
>alternatives to the current under sea cable transits (and reduce reliance on ACE, etc)?
>With the relatively small penetration of broadband in Africa, should
>not efforts be spent addressing broadband penetration rates and access
>to information, rather than ³keeping up with the Jones² and rolling out
>technology for the sake of technology?
>In Europe, I am only aware of France¹s Free who have a full native IPv6
>deployment, all other providers are managing to provide services
>without too big an IPv6 footprint. In the Americas, I believe a number
>of educational institutions have native v6, and most Sps can probably
>provide it. My contention, IPv6 rollouts globally have been quite low
>speed and that is probably because there are other priorities for the
>So major challenges to enabling services on v6, I guess the demand for
>such services, is probably going to be a major factor.If there is no
>demand or minimal demand, and a current working system exists, why
>waste time on it?
>Just my 2 cents.
>Sr. Network Engineer
>Swisscom (Switzerland) Ltd.
>2, chemin du Pavillon
>Case Postale 2200
>CH-1211 Genève 2
>Desk Phone:+41 227 407 585
>Cellular Phone:+ 41 794 426 765
>Fax Number: +41 227 740 7542
>This message contains confidential or privileged information and is
>intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed.
>If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you
>must not use, copy, disclose, forward or take any action based on this
>message or information herein. If you have received this message by
>error, please advise the sender immediately and delete this message.
>On 28/10/2014 07:18, "Mark Tinka" <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> wrote:
>>On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 07:05:33 AM Andrew Alston
>>> That challenge also prevents a
>>> lot of providers from actually putting in the effort (and sometimes
>>> expense) of rolling IPv6 all the way to the edge with a lack of
>>> demand. Its kinda a chicken and egg situation for many, no IPv6 at
>>> the edge decreases the number of people running IPv6, we decreases
>>> the demand for IPv6, which decreases the motivation to roll
>>> IPv6 to the edge.
>>I'm still reasonably disappointed in the lack of drive from retail
>>providers to offer IPv6 to their customers, i.e., the
>>Granted, it is a lot more challenging to deliver IPv6 to large scale
>>consumers (more so in Africa, where a lot of consumers are running
>>data off the mobile networks).
>>But I think that deployment of IPv6 toward end customers in a manner
>>where they do not have to directly participate in the process is where
>>we shall see the most gains.
>>The old mantra still holds true - users don't care, as long as it
>DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of
>which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only.
>If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email,
>please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the
>intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on
>this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which
>are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this
>company or one of its agents.
DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents.
More information about the RPD