On 1/25/15 1:33 AM, Ben wrote:
You only need a few sites with IPv6 issues to make it a deficit rather than a bonus. I personally tried using IPv6 for a while, but I found it reduced CDN performance, and it broke Facebook for a while. (there's some thread on Nanog about the Facebook breakage.. although I see more than one of them, and can't remember which it was)
More use will give more attention to these problems.
There is little benefit for users when hole punching fixed most NAT peer to peer communications, and applications like Skype still don't support it.
From a typical end user perspective that's probably true - today - but it's going to become, and is becoming, less true on a daily basis. See: Back-to-my-Mac, Windows Direct Access, Xbox One, etc.
CGN will not save you, and will add significant capital and operational cost to any ISP, regardless of technology chosen.
There's not much choice if more IPv4 addresses aren't available. If you run out of IP addreses you need CGN regardless of whether you have IPv6 support or not, and IPv6 may decrease the load on the CGN but not remove the necessity of such.
It's not a case of "may decrease", it will decrease. If 30% of your traffic (YouTube, Facebook, Netflix) can be accessed via IPv6, that's 30% less CGN you need to buy. If you're buying capacity in N-Gbps that is a significant reduction in CGN licenses/hardware you're buying, and significantly fewer TE-headache-inducing nodes in your network. Not to mention a less brittle network.
You can't go IPv6 only though. So you still need some level of CGN now or in the future.
Agreed, but it's better to require less.
And NZ being part of APNIC has level IP addresses available. You'd think people would be supporting it quicker...
Yes, you would, and it disappoints me that it is not more widely available in NZ.
I'm not against IPv6. But I think it's fine to not be in a huge rush to implement it. I'd much rather have 4G coverage on my cellphone than IPv6, even if IPv4 is natted. And so I'd rather cellphone providers focus on their 4G rollouts.
I don't see the relation between access technology and L3 technology, and in most operators these would be handled by largely separate departments. That said, 4G/LTE has given many operators an excellent impetus to deploy IPv6 - both for the user plane, but also for the internal network plane. And if you're going through and refreshing your SGSN/S-GW, GGSN/P-GW, re-engineering your MBH network to support more traffic, etc then you have an excellent opportunity to enable IPv6 as you do it. Incremental work rather than an entire overlay project. Oh, and as that access bandwidth ramps up, you need less NAT. Win/win all round. Maybe it is related after all. AJ