Discussion about "Why Is This IPv6 Transition Taking So long?"
Dear IPv6 WG list members, we had a very packed agenda in our last session in Prague. Therefore we unfortunately did not have so much time for questions and longer discussions. Thanks again to all of the presenters! More than a week has passed now and I heard very different, opposing opinions about one of the presentations. Geoff Huston was talking about "Why Is This IPv6 Transition Taking So long" [1]. Shortly before the RIPE89 meeting Geoff published a related article [2] in the APNIC blog. What do you think about Geoffs presentation? Did the Internet change and do we have to adjust our expectations? Do you agree to the fact that we now have "A Network of Names" and are using a lot of CDNs to bring content to the End Users and therefore perhaps do not need to do more IPv6 migration or do you think we all should find a way to somehow speed up the IPv6 migration around the world to enable end-to-end communication between all devices again? [1] https://ripe89.ripe.net/archives/video/1493/ [2] https://blog.apnic.net/2024/10/22/the-ipv6-transition/ Thanks and kind regards from Berlin Chris
Am 10.11.2024 um 19:00:08 Uhr schrieb Christian Seitz:
What do you think about Geoffs presentation?
It was good.
Did the Internet change and do we have to adjust our expectations?
Yes it did change and it is still drifting more into that bad direction. A decentralized internet has many benefits - a centralized one some big disadvantages. A small number of companies can control many stuff - many of them are American.
Do you agree to the fact that we now have "A Network of Names" and are using a lot of CDNs to bring content to the End Users and therefore perhaps do not need to do more IPv6 migration or do you think we all should find a way to somehow speed up the IPv6 migration around the world to enable end-to-end communication between all devices again?
I think there needs to be a transition ASAP. Many home user connections don't get public IPv4 anymore and that means they can't host stuff in their network, VoIP is also a PITA if the provider only supports IPv4. I see it very problematic that countries exist where almost no IPv6 deployment exists. In many countries, people can choose an ISP that supports IPv6, but in those countries this is often impossible, which means they have to rent machines otherwise to host public-accessible content. -- Gruß Marco Send unsolicited bulk mail to 1731261608muell@cartoonies.org
On 11 Nov 2024, at 5:42 AM, Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
Am 10.11.2024 um 19:00:08 Uhr schrieb Christian Seitz:
What do you think about Geoffs presentation?
It was good.
thanks!
Did the Internet change and do we have to adjust our expectations?
Yes it did change and it is still drifting more into that bad direction. A decentralized internet has many benefits - a centralized one some big disadvantages. A small number of companies can control many stuff - many of them are American.
I've been careful not to judge these changes as "good" or "bad. The Internet is not obeying anyone's plan and there are no rules per se. Individual producers attempt to optimise their commercial position by reducing costs and maximising revenue. Overall, the profile of the service heads in the direction where consumers see value, and service providers work to provide services. These days is seems that consumers are willing to place a value on streaming content so providers are crowding into that market, leveraging the capabilities of CDNs to minimise their costs and maximise the quality experience for consumers, and their rewards for their efforts are in the retention of subscribers month by month. These changes pushed the bulk of the transit market back into privately owned and operated infrastructure and the public network shrank to be a handover between the edge of the CDNs and the access infrastructure.
Do you agree to the fact that we now have "A Network of Names" and are using a lot of CDNs to bring content to the End Users and therefore perhaps do not need to do more IPv6 migration or do you think we all should find a way to somehow speed up the IPv6 migration around the world to enable end-to-end communication between all devices again?
I think there needs to be a transition ASAP. Many home user connections don't get public IPv4 anymore and that means they can't host stuff in their network, VoIP is also a PITA if the provider only supports IPv4.
If users were willing to value such services and select their ISP based on their provision of such services in their offerings then we would see it being offerred ubiquitously. The harsh reality is that there is no commercial demand for such services where the incremental premium in subscription cost that users are willing to pay exceeds the marginal cost of provision, so providers do not feel any market-based pressure to provide such services.
I see it very problematic that countries exist where almost no IPv6 deployment exists. In many countries, people can choose an ISP that supports IPv6, but in those countries this is often impossible, which means they have to rent machines otherwise to host public-accessible content.
The harsh reality of toxic attacks on public services has, in my mind, been the most persuasive factor that has pushed service publication into dedicated platforms that can withstand todays run-on-the-mill attacks. Its just so much cheaper and easier to outsource the function and its associated vulnerabilities. if IPv6 was crucial to providing services to the consumer market then this transition would've been over 20 years ago! The observation that in many respects the transition has stalled tends to suggest that neither consumers nor providers see the ubiquitous availability of this technology as a critical factor to the Internet-based market for the provision of services. regards, Geoff
Christian Seitz <chris@in-berlin.de> wrote: > What do you think about Geoffs presentation? Did the Internet change and do > we have to adjust our expectations? Do you agree to the fact that we now have > "A Network of Names" and are using a lot of CDNs to bring content to the End > Users and therefore perhaps do not need to do more IPv6 migration or do you > think we all should find a way to somehow speed up the IPv6 migration around > the world to enable end-to-end communication between all devices again? I can't argue too much with Geoff's results. This is not the first talk of his that points to this result; it's been a trend of many such results in a variety of different ways. They don't make me happy, and I know Geoff isn't particularly happy the results, so I feel sad. I wonder (hope?) that this might be a blip in a much longer history (yet to be written) where end to end becomes more important again. If it makes sense due to Moore's law to push content to the nearest data center, maybe it will make even more sense to push it even closer to me. But, on the intellectual side, I think that there are some things that we can do that would be useful. Specifically, let's put away our emotions for a moment and imagine that this CDN-focused architecture was always our goal, and consider how we would really do this properly for IPv4. For instance, 1) 0.0.0.0/1 is for eyeball networks only, and is repeated RFC1918-style into every jurisdiction, or part of a jurisdiction. (forget about how we get there) 2) 128.0.0.0/2 is for content. Not sure if it's globally unique or not. 3) 192.0.0.0/3 is for global infrastrastructure. [4) IPv6 is for global infrastructure] This would be a table-top game, and the goal is to find out what works, where the fillable gaps are, and what gaps can not be filled. What do we break? I imagine this to be weekend-before-RIPE hackathon-like (OARC-like) event. -- Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- *I*LIKE*TRAINS*
participants (4)
-
Christian Seitz -
Geoff Huston -
Marco Moock -
Michael Richardson