RE: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
At 15:14 29/10/2007, Mark Pace Balzan wrote:
IPv6 Internet is working even now, but completely useless. Because of there is no resources at all.
In my opinion, the concrete goal is make 51% of _resources_ (not users) to be reachable through IPv6 before we run out of IPv4. If it succeeds, other 49% will go with "the majority", if not - IPv6 migration completely fails and something other (NAT, secondary market of IPv4, higher level proxies over non-IP protocols, ...) will be implemented instead.
my 2c worth:
v4 and v6 will co-exist for a while, whether we like it or not, and therefore v4 and v6 stuff will need a way to get to each other depending on the service at hand.
They will co-exist for a long while due to lack of pressure from the users. If v4 really runs out, there will start to be some parts of the Internet that are not accessible to some users. Then they will complain to their ISP and something starts to happen. Then it gets in the mainstream press, at which point you may see a more rapid transition. Plenty of people will however say, why should I bother to get a new xxx box when I can reach all sites I care about. Unless the govts get involved, of course. -- Tim
I think the users will not need to push the ISPs, in general. The fact is that there is much more IPv6 traffic that what we believe, transition traffic, and this will impact the ISPs once they start realizing it, hopefully as soon as possible, so they can take measures, for example, deploying local 6to4 and Teredo relays, so the RTT get lower and IPv6 connectivity improves. Of course, only as a temporary measure until they can provide dual-stack in the access and customers have dual-stack enabled CPEs, possibly with other reasons for replacing them, such as new broadband technologies (more bandwidth, etc.). Here is my talk in the last meeting plenary with the traffic stats ... http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/palet-v6.pdf Looking for a more global measurement, so I can report a much broader view, but I don't think it will change too much from what I've seen already :-) Regards, Jordi
De: Tim Streater <tim.streater@dante.org.uk> Responder a: <address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net> Fecha: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:06:15 +0000 Para: Mark Pace Balzan <mpb@melitacable.com>, Max Tulyev <president@ukraine.su>, <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: RE: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
At 15:14 29/10/2007, Mark Pace Balzan wrote:
IPv6 Internet is working even now, but completely useless. Because of there is no resources at all.
In my opinion, the concrete goal is make 51% of _resources_ (not users) to be reachable through IPv6 before we run out of IPv4. If it succeeds, other 49% will go with "the majority", if not - IPv6 migration completely fails and something other (NAT, secondary market of IPv4, higher level proxies over non-IP protocols, ...) will be implemented instead.
my 2c worth:
v4 and v6 will co-exist for a while, whether we like it or not, and therefore v4 and v6 stuff will need a way to get to each other depending on the service at hand.
They will co-exist for a long while due to lack of pressure from the users. If v4 really runs out, there will start to be some parts of the Internet that are not accessible to some users. Then they will complain to their ISP and something starts to happen. Then it gets in the mainstream press, at which point you may see a more rapid transition. Plenty of people will however say, why should I bother to get a new xxx box when I can reach all sites I care about.
Unless the govts get involved, of course.
-- Tim
********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
Hi Jordi, > Here is my talk in the last meeting plenary with the > traffic stats ... > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentation s/palet-v6.pdf Those slides don't mention what network the stats refer to. Care to share? Cheers, Mat
Hi Mat, I guess it will be clear when the audio/video is available. I explained in my presentation that this is our own network. We have several services which are dual-stack, but my view is that most of the traffic is peer to peer traffic that is being "attracted" to our network because we offer an open public 6to4 and Teredo relay, in addition to the tunnel broker. This may sound as a biased measurement, but actually I don't think so. If we don't have those relays running, this peer-to-peer traffic will be going thru other relays, right ? So unless there is no any relay ... it means that it is logic to assume that the global traffic may become close to those figures, and I guess this will be more true in the next few months, as more and more folks use Vista (and other IPv6 enabled OSs) which automatically use transition mechanisms, and as much more applications take advantage of that. My intend to confirm this, is to decide how to distribute this measurement tool to several ISPs in each region, and then have a regional and global picture of what is actually happening, in such way that we can extrapolate overall IPv6 traffic. As we are measuring transition and I don't expect that the native one will grow too much unless many ISPs start offering dual stack in the access, it is not required that those ISPs being measured have native support at all. Of course, I don't expect that they will have so much transition traffic unless they offer also 6to4 and Teredo relays, however my guess, is that they will be still having more than what they actually though. Regards, Jordi
De: <matthew.ford@bt.com> Responder a: <address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net> Fecha: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 17:55:39 -0000 Para: <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> CC: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Conversación: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) Asunto: RE: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
Hi Jordi,
Here is my talk in the last meeting plenary with the traffic stats ... http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentation s/palet-v6.pdf
Those slides don't mention what network the stats refer to. Care to share?
Cheers, Mat
********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
On 29 okt 2007, at 17:47, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
The fact is that there is much more IPv6 traffic that what we believe,
I'm quickly approaching my posting limit for the day (week?) but I can't resist telling you the following story: I recently found myself somewhere where BitTorrent is severely throttled. Although I can download over HTTP at megabytes per second, BitTorrent downloads wouldn't go faster than 10 kilobytes per second. Turns out that the newest Azureus (BitTorrent application) supports IPv6. Enabled this and lo and behold: I got about 75 peers, 5 of which were IPv6, the rest IPv4. Of the IPv6 peers, one had a regular IPv6 address, the other four 6to4 addresses. Even though the 70 IPv4 peers could only give me 10 kB/s, the 5 IPv6 peers pushed my download well beyond 100 kB/s. So under the right circumstances, a little IPv6 can go a long way.
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 29 okt 2007, at 17:47, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
The fact is that there is much more IPv6 traffic that what we believe,
I'm quickly approaching my posting limit for the day (week?) but I can't resist telling you the following story:
I recently found myself somewhere where BitTorrent is severely throttled. Although I can download over HTTP at megabytes per second, BitTorrent downloads wouldn't go faster than 10 kilobytes per second.
Turns out that the newest Azureus (BitTorrent application) supports IPv6. Enabled this and lo and behold: I got about 75 peers, 5 of which were IPv6, the rest IPv4. Of the IPv6 peers, one had a regular IPv6 address, the other four 6to4 addresses. Even though the 70 IPv4 peers could only give me 10 kB/s, the 5 IPv6 peers pushed my download well beyond 100 kB/s.
So under the right circumstances, a little IPv6 can go a long way.
Iljitsch, This matches with the questions i DIDN'T ask Jordi last week: p2p ipv6 traffic? but which applications are generating it? MSN? I was not aware that a "somewhat popular" bittorrent client was doing v6... I remember that some years ago, some people from 6NET and other projects approached the guy which developed the protocol and he sort of refused to cooperate in the effort of making it v6 compatible. Then, afaik some people developed a patch, but of course that didn't reflect into real usage... :-( Cheers, ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Friac,as See: Wide Area Network Working Group (WAN) www.gigapix.pt FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional www.ipv6.eu Av. do Brasil, n.101 www.6diss.org 1700-066 Lisboa, Portugal, Europe www.geant2.net Tel: +351 218440100 Fax: +351 218472167 www.fccn.pt ------------------------------------------------------------------------- The end is near........ see http://ipv4.potaroo.net "Internet is just routes (217118/774), naming (billions) and... people!" Aviso de Confidencialidade Esta mensagem e' exclusivamente destinada ao seu destinatario, podendo conter informacao CONFIDENCIAL, cuja divulgacao esta' expressamente vedada nos termos da lei. Caso tenha recepcionado indevidamente esta mensagem, solicitamos-lhe que nos comunique esse mesmo facto por esta via ou para o telefone +351 218440100 devendo apagar o seu conteudo de imediato. Warning This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. It may contain CONFIDENTIAL information protected by law. If this message has been received by error, please notify us via e-mail or by telephone +351 218440100 and delete it immediately.
On 30 okt 2007, at 14:39, Carlos Friacas wrote:
Turns out that the newest Azureus (BitTorrent application) supports IPv6.
I was not aware that a "somewhat popular" bittorrent client was doing v6... I remember that some years ago, some people from 6NET and other projects approached the guy which developed the protocol and he sort of refused to cooperate in the effort of making it v6 compatible. Then, afaik some people developed a patch, but of course that didn't reflect into real usage... :-(
Hm, the way I understand it is that the original BitTorrent protocol (not the original client, AFAIK) supported IPv6. However, the protocol was later streamlined and IPv6 support dropped, I think by other people. There's also the issue that you must choose one address to tell the tracker, and trackers may have their own opinions about IPv6 addresses. However, these days most BitTorrent clients use dynamic hash tables in addition to a centralized tracker and I believe IPv6 is used for/ through the DHT.
- Bittornado, Azureus, Transmission, BTG, Opera builtin torrent client support IPv6. Have a look: http://www.sixxs.net/tools/tracker/clients/ or http://ipv6.niif.hu/index.php?mn=3&sm=5&lg=en Janos Mohacsi Network Engineer, Research Associate, Head of Network Planning and Projects NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY Key 70EF9882: DEC2 C685 1ED4 C95A 145F 4300 6F64 7B00 70EF 9882 On Tue, 30 Oct 2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 30 okt 2007, at 14:39, Carlos Friacas wrote:
Turns out that the newest Azureus (BitTorrent application) supports IPv6.
I was not aware that a "somewhat popular" bittorrent client was doing v6... I remember that some years ago, some people from 6NET and other projects approached the guy which developed the protocol and he sort of refused to cooperate in the effort of making it v6 compatible. Then, afaik some people developed a patch, but of course that didn't reflect into real usage... :-(
Hm, the way I understand it is that the original BitTorrent protocol (not the original client, AFAIK) supported IPv6. However, the protocol was later streamlined and IPv6 support dropped, I think by other people. There's also the issue that you must choose one address to tell the tracker, and trackers may have their own opinions about IPv6 addresses.
However, these days most BitTorrent clients use dynamic hash tables in addition to a centralized tracker and I believe IPv6 is used for/through the DHT.
And the same is true with many other apps, such as Windows Live, newer versions or on-line games, etc. It is clear that with IPv6 and automatic transition mechanisms, you can avoid intermediate servers and do a real peer-to-peer. No need for developing special code for NAT traversal and other stuff. Other developers are already discovering this and I'm convinced that in less than one year the 51% that you mention in another email will be exceeded ! So again: Please, all ISPs start deploying 6to4 and Teredo relays in your networks until you can provide dual-stack to the access. I'm happy to help on that ! Regards, Jordi
De: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com> Responder a: <address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net> Fecha: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 22:23:53 +0100 Para: <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> CC: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
On 29 okt 2007, at 17:47, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
The fact is that there is much more IPv6 traffic that what we believe,
I'm quickly approaching my posting limit for the day (week?) but I can't resist telling you the following story:
I recently found myself somewhere where BitTorrent is severely throttled. Although I can download over HTTP at megabytes per second, BitTorrent downloads wouldn't go faster than 10 kilobytes per second.
Turns out that the newest Azureus (BitTorrent application) supports IPv6. Enabled this and lo and behold: I got about 75 peers, 5 of which were IPv6, the rest IPv4. Of the IPv6 peers, one had a regular IPv6 address, the other four 6to4 addresses. Even though the 70 IPv4 peers could only give me 10 kB/s, the 5 IPv6 peers pushed my download well beyond 100 kB/s.
So under the right circumstances, a little IPv6 can go a long way.
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
And the same is true with many other apps, such as Windows Live, newer versions
...any wireshark/tcpdump data?
or on-line games, etc.
...which?
It is clear that with IPv6 and automatic transition mechanisms, you can avoid intermediate servers and do a real peer-to-peer. No need for developing special code for NAT traversal and other stuff.
That works if the transition relay: - is geographically near endpoints (hence, a good idea to deploy more...) - isn't lying on badly designed or congested infrastructure.
Other developers are already discovering this and I'm convinced that in less than one year the 51% that you mention in another email will be exceeded !
One year??? Guiness-Class Optimism!!! ;-)
So again: Please, all ISPs start deploying 6to4 and Teredo relays in your networks until you can provide dual-stack to the access. I'm happy to help on that !
Regards, Jordi
Regards, Carlos
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
I'm quickly approaching my posting limit for the day (week?) but I can't resist telling you the following story:
I recently found myself somewhere where BitTorrent is severely throttled. Although I can download over HTTP at megabytes per second, BitTorrent downloads wouldn't go faster than 10 kilobytes per second.
Turns out that the newest Azureus (BitTorrent application) supports IPv6. Enabled this and lo and behold: I got about 75 peers, 5 of which were IPv6, the rest IPv4. Of the IPv6 peers, one had a regular IPv6 address, the other four 6to4 addresses. Even though the 70 IPv4 peers could only give me 10 kB/s, the 5 IPv6 peers pushed my download well beyond 100 kB/s.
May be that's just because of your rating in these peering networks? ;) -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)
participants (7)
-
Carlos Friacas -
Iljitsch van Beijnum -
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ -
matthew.ford＠bt.com -
Max Tulyev -
Mohacsi Janos -
Tim Streater