Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[rpd] Summary of proposals: IPv4 Runout Management

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Fri Nov 11 19:26:43 UTC 2016 

> On Nov 11, 2016, at 03:05 , Kevin Kamonye <kevin.kamonye at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> That is a good read Owen (including the contents of your mails, for sure!). Such needs wide circulation and prominence. 
> 
> They even seem to be having fun with it while we hang on to I just don't know what..
> 
> IPv6 addresses aren't really supposed to spell out domain names, but Facebook has adopted an IPv6 addy that includes the characters "faceb00c."
> 
> A quick DNS lookup of facebook.com <http://facebook.com/> confirms this: the domain resolves to 2a03:2880:2130:cf05:face:b00c::1. Faceb00c. Get it?
> 
> At The Reg's London office, we can’t agree on what we should think about that. 
> 
> IPv6.BBC.co.uk <http://ipv6.bbc.co.uk/> also resolves to 2001:4b10:bbc::1 and 2001:4b10:bbc::2, so maybe this is a thing now? What do you reckon?

I think if you give people the opportunity to be cute, some of them will.

If you have a name that happens to fit within the first 6 letters of the English alphabet, then you’re golden and you can encode it in your IPv6 address if you like.

Meh, whatever… As long as you’re deploying IPv6, I don’t care what you spell with your addresses.

My default gateway on all my subnets at home is prefix::dead:beef for humor’s sake.

However, we are straying off the policy topic here.

> And its not all just fun and games.. 
> 
> Facebook News Feeds Load 20-40% Faster Over IPv6 <http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/blog/2015/04/facebook-news-feeds-load-20-40-faster-over-ipv6/>

Truth.

> On 10 November 2016 at 23:05, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
>> On Nov 9, 2016, at 23:14 , Noah <noah at neo.co.tz <mailto: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 <http://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 <http://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 <http://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 <http://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 <http://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 <http://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 <http://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 <http://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 <http://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 <http://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 <http://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 <http://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 <http://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 <http://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 <http://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 <http://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 <http://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 <http://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/ <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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20161111/7d50112d/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the RPD mailing list