[rpd] Summary of proposals: IPv4 Runout Management

[Owen DeLong]

> On Nov 9, 2016, at 23:14 , Noah <noah at neo.co.tz> wrote:
> 
> If people want to deploy IPv6 they will do it but the compeling reason will eventually be competition as the motivation and nothing else.
> 
> Atleast folk i know who do it dont even dual stack in their core as the prefix basically just seats on their boader router facing their ISP for the purpose of announcing it and that is it.
> 
Really?

You don’t know very many people then… Here are some I know:

Pinging www.facebook.com: 
PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 2620::930:0:380a:e409:25b4:1014 --> 2a03:2880:f127:83:face:b00c::25de
16 bytes from 2a03:2880:f127:83:face:b00c::25de, icmp_seq=0 hlim=53 time=78.875 ms
16 bytes from 2a03:2880:f127:83:face:b00c::25de, icmp_seq=1 hlim=53 time=76.036 ms
16 bytes from 2a03:2880:f127:83:face:b00c::25de, icmp_seq=2 hlim=53 time=75.961 ms

--- star-mini.c10r.facebook.com ping6 statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 3 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 75.961/76.957/78.875/1.356 ms
0.001u 0.003s 0:02.13 0.0%	0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
Pinging www.google.com: 
PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 2620::930:0:380a:e409:25b4:1014 --> 2607:f8b0:4005:801::2004
16 bytes from 2607:f8b0:4005:801::2004, icmp_seq=0 hlim=55 time=31.035 ms
16 bytes from 2607:f8b0:4005:801::2004, icmp_seq=1 hlim=55 time=31.229 ms
16 bytes from 2607:f8b0:4005:801::2004, icmp_seq=2 hlim=55 time=30.146 ms

--- www.google.com ping6 statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 3 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 30.146/30.803/31.229/0.472 ms
0.000u 0.002s 0:02.03 0.0%	0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
Pinging www.comcast.net: 
PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 2620::930:0:380a:e409:25b4:1014 --> 2600:1406:34::b819:388d
16 bytes from 2600:1406:34::b819:388d, icmp_seq=0 hlim=56 time=35.388 ms
16 bytes from 2600:1406:34::b819:388d, icmp_seq=1 hlim=56 time=35.445 ms
16 bytes from 2600:1406:34::b819:388d, icmp_seq=2 hlim=56 time=30.565 ms

--- a1526.dscg.akamai.net ping6 statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 3 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 30.565/33.799/35.445/2.287 ms
0.000u 0.002s 0:02.05 0.0%	0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
Pinging www.netflix.com: 
PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 2620::930:0:380a:e409:25b4:1014 --> 2620:108:700f::36ba:99e4
16 bytes from 2620:108:700f::36ba:99e4, icmp_seq=0 hlim=43 time=50.512 ms
16 bytes from 2620:108:700f::36ba:99e4, icmp_seq=1 hlim=43 time=50.382 ms
16 bytes from 2620:108:700f::36ba:99e4, icmp_seq=2 hlim=43 time=50.202 ms

--- www.latency.prodaa.netflix.com ping6 statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 3 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 50.202/50.365/50.512/0.127 ms
0.000u 0.004s 0:02.07 0.0%	0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
Pinging whitehouse.gov: 
PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 2620::930:0:380a:e409:25b4:1014 --> 2001:428:6402:19c::2add
16 bytes from 2001:428:6402:19c::2add, icmp_seq=0 hlim=56 time=48.869 ms
16 bytes from 2001:428:6402:19c::2add, icmp_seq=1 hlim=56 time=49.243 ms
16 bytes from 2001:428:6402:19c::2add, icmp_seq=2 hlim=56 time=48.470 ms

--- whitehouse.gov ping6 statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 3 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 48.470/48.861/49.243/0.316 ms
0.000u 0.002s 0:02.09 0.0%	0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
Pinging www.irs.gov: 
PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 2620::930:0:380a:e409:25b4:1014 --> 2600:1406:40:2bb::f50
16 bytes from 2600:1406:40:2bb::f50, icmp_seq=0 hlim=55 time=35.796 ms
16 bytes from 2600:1406:40:2bb::f50, icmp_seq=1 hlim=55 time=30.659 ms
16 bytes from 2600:1406:40:2bb::f50, icmp_seq=2 hlim=55 time=30.862 ms

--- e3920.dscna.akamaiedge.net ping6 statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 3 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 30.659/32.439/35.796/2.375 ms
0.000u 0.003s 0:02.05 0.0%	0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
Pinging www.usda.gov: 
PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 2620::930:0:380a:e409:25b4:1014 --> 2600:1406:1a:39a::500
16 bytes from 2600:1406:1a:39a::500, icmp_seq=0 hlim=56 time=149.769 ms
16 bytes from 2600:1406:1a:39a::500, icmp_seq=1 hlim=56 time=147.715 ms
16 bytes from 2600:1406:1a:39a::500, icmp_seq=2 hlim=56 time=145.721 ms

--- e1280.dscb.akamaiedge.net ping6 statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 3 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 145.721/147.735/149.769/1.653 ms
0.000u 0.004s 0:02.17 0.0%	0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
Pinging www.juniper.net: 
PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 2620::930:0:380a:e409:25b4:1014 --> 2600:1406:1a:3a0::720
16 bytes from 2600:1406:1a:3a0::720, icmp_seq=0 hlim=56 time=148.142 ms
16 bytes from 2600:1406:1a:3a0::720, icmp_seq=1 hlim=56 time=150.608 ms
16 bytes from 2600:1406:1a:3a0::720, icmp_seq=2 hlim=56 time=145.517 ms

--- e1824.dscb.akamaiedge.net ping6 statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 3 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 145.517/148.089/150.608/2.079 ms
0.000u 0.002s 0:02.17 0.0%	0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
Pinging www.cisco.com: 
PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 2620::930:0:380a:e409:25b4:1014 --> 2600:1406:1a:389::90
16 bytes from 2600:1406:1a:389::90, icmp_seq=0 hlim=56 time=145.665 ms
16 bytes from 2600:1406:1a:389::90, icmp_seq=1 hlim=56 time=145.943 ms
16 bytes from 2600:1406:1a:389::90, icmp_seq=2 hlim=56 time=145.636 ms

--- e144.dscb.akamaiedge.net ping6 statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 3 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 145.636/145.748/145.943/0.138 ms
0.000u 0.002s 0:02.17 0.0%	0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w

I know more, but I think that gets the point across.

> So announcing an IPv6 prefix to an upstream provider imho doesnt cut it and its easy to do.

That’s true… Really deploying IPv6 is what is needed and it is happening with or without the African region.

Guess what happens in the rest of the world shortly after IPv6 is sufficiently deployed that IPv4 stragglers are no longer considered sufficiently relevant to justify the costs?

Don’t believe me… Read this:

http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/resources/case-study-facebook-moving-to-an-ipv6-only-internal-network/

This is from 2014… They’ve continued to progress down the turn off IPv4 internally road since then.

AWS and Microsoft Azure have now deployed IPv6 support for their cloud platforms.

Amazon’s ROUTE53 DNS service now has IPv6 support.

If you truly want to see the African region able to meaningfully interact with the internet going forward, focusing on IPv4 will not serve you well.

Owen


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20161110/df78d5dc/attachment-0001.html>