[rpd] Summary of proposals: IPv4 Runout Management

[Noah]

On 10 Nov 2016 23:06, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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:
>

Mine was within the context of AFRINIC region not the rest of the world.


> Pinging www.facebook.com:
> 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 ---
> round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 75.961/76.957/78.875/1.356 ms
> Pinging www.google.com:
> 16 bytes from 2607:f8b0:4005:801::2004, icmp_seq=2 hlim=55 time=30.146 ms
> Pinging www.comcast.net:
> 16 bytes from 2600:1406:34::b819:388d, icmp_seq=2 hlim=56 time=30.565 ms
> --- a1526.dscg.akamai.net ping6 statistics ---
> round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 30.565/33.799/35.445/2.287 ms
> Pinging www.netflix.com:
> 16 bytes from 2620:108:700f::36ba:99e4, icmp_seq=2 hlim=43 time=50.202 ms
> --- www.latency.prodaa.netflix.com ping6 statistics ---
> round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 50.202/50.365/50.512/0.127 ms
> --- e1280.dscb.akamaiedge.net ping6 statistics ---
> round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 145.721/147.735/149.769/1.653 ms
> Pinging www.juniper.net:
> 16 bytes from 2600:1406:1a:3a0::720, icmp_seq=2 hlim=56 time=145.517 ms
> Pinging www.cisco.com:
> 16 bytes from 2600:1406:1a:389::90, icmp_seq=2 hlim=56 time=145.636 ms
>

I knew about most networks in the USA dual-stacking for a while. But I am
less concerned with USA networks.In fact for me, I would be surprised if
most if those USA based content providers networks were not running IPv6.

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

It doesn't get any point across from the context of the folks I know within
AFRICA. Ours is still very low and there are so many compelling reasons to
it. Do you expect Google or Facebook whose businesses are based heavily
dependent of numbers to seat there and not roll out v6. In fact they will
never turn off their IPv4 because most of the folk outside the USA who
consume their services still seat on IPv4 enabled networks. This is the
very reason an IPv4 transfer market is booming out at the time where IPv4
is considered legacy.

>
>> 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.
>

I agree and the google stats which I tend to monitor very often attest to
that fact but not at the kind of speed one would expect especially in our
region with the exception of a new networks.


> 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?
>

I am not going to guess but its sad that IPv6 deployment will take time as
far as our region is concerned especially when the Telecos are not showing
signs of immediately firing up v6. We dont have so many content providers
out here but even though there is some significant number  of startups,
most of the video and audio still seats of Youtube and the other mainstream
content is yet to go online/Internet whether its Radio or TV content.

Pretty much most of the content being consumed today on the Internet comes
straight from the USA content providers and even when some of their CDN's
seat in different locations around the world, the consumers source
addresses are heavily IPv4 because ISP's are still happy with what they
have.


> 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.
>

All the above are USA content providers/ISP if you will.  Facebook, Google
etc makes their money by making sure more people are on facebook or using
Google services while they sale their Ads. Neither facebook nor Google or
any other content provider network out there care whether the consumers of
their services are connecting on the internet through a legacy IPv4 source
address if you will or an IPv6 source address. And they are smart and they
understand the business which is whey they will obviously not seat back and
not deploy IPv6 because every end user matters to them hence their
readiness.


> 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.
>

No one if focusing on IPv4, its just that the reality on the ground is
exactly what it is.

But even when the IPv4 protocol becomes completely legacy, folk straight
outta IPv6 Internet will still need to connect back to the legacy IPv4
network. That is where the IPv4 addresses will still be useful which is why
IPv4 transfer markets are cropping everywhere because its about $$$$ at the
end of the day.


> Owen
>

And that is my rational.

Noah
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20161111/2ada1e2c/attachment-0001.html>