Re: [nznog] IPv6 support across NZ ISPs

On 1/24/15 4:03 PM, Peter Lambrechtsen wrote:

On 25/01/2015 10:28 AM, "Alastair Johnson" mailto:aj(a)sneep.net> wrote:

...

On 1/24/15 11:11 AM, Peter Lambrechtsen wrote:

...

My personal view is I personally doubt there will be much movement for the next 5+ years or even more unless the "killer v6" app comes out or something major happens like Facebook only supporting v6 from a certain date. There are fairly simple reasons why.

I find that a depressing view. There's no reason for most ISPs why

IPv6 should not be delivered on broadband today, especially from new market entrants.

I agree.. but how come bigpipe and Myrepublic both launched with a v4 only stack.

You would have to ask them. I'm particularly perplexed as I understand Bigpipe are in fact using CGN. For me it makes no sense as a new entrant to start without IPv6, as it is only incremental engineering over what you need to do to get the network online to begin with; and starting with CGN is obviously significantly impacting to the initial investment.

And how come trademe, nzherald, stuff, nbr, computerworld, xero don't have v6 enabled. In fact I struggled to find a mainstream site that was v6 enabled. These too are the main domestic providers of content in whatever form yet they haven't launched their service with a dual stack. Why are we not complaining they are not providing dual stack access to their sites.

I have a vague recollection that Trademe indicated they were doing something about IPv6 a few years ago. As to why the content sources in NZ aren't doing it, I guess it's something to do with chicken-and-eyeballs, no? This of course was one of the reasons behind ISOC and the World IPv6 Days, to actually give people attention for enabling IPv6 and getting it done. On the other hand, major NZ content sources like Facebook, YouTube, Google, Mega.co.nz, and so forth. There's some interesting statistics available at https://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/detailed.php?country=nz. It would certainly be nicer if there was more green.

...

I have native IPv6 (dual stack) on my wireline connection in my US home; native IPv6 on my US LTE cellular device (dual stack w/ NAT IPv4). Many operators worldwide have completed the implementation, and IPv6 traffic is trending upward.

Not disagreeing with you at all. All of my international hosted VPSs are dual stack with v6 preference.

But my main point about v4 scarcity is the main driver for the comcasts of this world to move to dual stack or pure v6. And that scarcity doesn't apply as much in NZ. So for that reason adoption here I suspect will continue to be slow.

It's not necessarily IPv4 scarcity. As you suggest, mature markets aren't seeing significant subscriber growth (although it is there: multiple connections) that would drive immediate IPv4 exhaustion - it's typically several compounding factors like less-than-ideal decision making with initial address pool design, the complexity and operational overhead of shifting IPv4 address pools around, and in many cases, management-plane connectivity (e.g. managing 100M STBs in the private network was more of an issue than 20M HSI subscribers). In-home device management becomes complex when you have to traverse subscriber-side NAT instead of directly manage the device. However, scarcity does continue to impact but usually in less straight-forward ways: the number of connections does continue to grow; the margin pressure on residential broadband services that versus more business oriented high margin services (cloud/VPS, business internet access, etc) that consume more IPv4 addresses - leading to businesses to consider removing IPv4 resources from low margin products. This in turn drives CGN deployment, which in turn drives cost. IPv6 doesn't make any of this go away entirely - although IPv6 overlays like 464XLAT that Brian mentions go some way toward mitigating the issues - it does improve network flexibility and ensure that you only NAT the least traffic possible.

V6 was something I was pushing for with some vigor at my employer a few years ago. But then I saw the spare address space most ISPs have means the priority is not there.

General disagreement here. I've worked with many service providers that don't have immediate exhaustion issues but are deploying IPv6 as part of having a short, medium, and long term technology and network strategy. They are all seeing it as the smart - and obvious - choice.

I still believe the main issue facing our country will be with the Chorus ATM and BUBA issue for our rural folks. That's not something that is going to be solved any time soon with the tighter budgets Chorus faces. That will have a greater impact on our economy for a longer time the longer it takes to get sorted. V6 is IMHO quite far down the priority list.

Access technology and L3 technology are mostly unrelated. Luckily IPv6 works quite nicely over most L1/L2 technologies; so I don't see your point here. AJ