[AusNOG] IPv6

[Joseph Goldman]

Just chiming in with another 2 cents - I have pretty much native IPv6 at 
home (proper /64 from our /32 APNIC assignment) full BGP peering on both 
transit and IX's - and all my debian (ubuntu specifically) devices set 
to use IPv6.

I have found situations (on more then one occasion) where the IPv6 
counterpart to the same resource, is a lesser option. I feel IPv6 is a 
lower priority on most networks in the sense of full traffic 
engineering, and as such can have usability consequences.

A bad but quick example would be Google's public DNS - 8.8.8.8 and 
8.8.4.4 are 12ms away from my house - however 2001:4860:4860::8888 and 
2001:4860:4860::8844 are 150ms away from my house - I learn both routes 
from Megaport but Google obviously placing more priority on IPv4 for 
public DNS - I say this is a bad example as most other google/youtube 
resources are very close and fast via IPv6 as well, but I have had other 
random resources showing 300ms on IPv6 vs 150ms on IPv4 and so on.

So this phenomenon has been discussed in terms of Happy Eyeballs, but 
that was taking into account the lag of IPv6 tunnel brokers, I just 
wanted to give an example of a more 'native' IPv6 feel.

On 30/03/15 19:12, Russell Langton wrote:
> Hi Noel,
>
> Very eye opening from a user point of view.
>
> I know some of those websites have some ipv6 - ipv6.slashdot.org 
> <http://ipv6.slashdot.org> for example, but from a user point it goes 
> to show that there is alot of work still to do.
>
> it would be interesting to undertake the same test in the future to 
> see if any improvements.
>
> I am wondering if the admins of any of those domains are on the list 
> and could comment on the ipv6 readiness and whats holding it back as a 
> learning experience?
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Noel Butler <noel.butler at ausics.net 
> <mailto:noel.butler at ausics.net>> wrote:
>
>     On 30/03/2015 12:23, Noel Butler wrote:
>
>>     On 27/03/2015 21:37, Mark Newton wrote:
>>
>>         You're going to make sure that IPv6 cannot possibly be
>>         something you can use by constructing an impractical test
>>         scenario that is guaranteed to produce a poor result?
>>         Dual stack, Noel. That means both protocols are running.
>>         You don't need to nuke IPv4, you just need to prevent Happy
>>         Eyeballs from selecting your IPv4 addresses in preference to
>>         your higher-latency tunneled IPv6 addresses.
>>         If you had deployed IPv6 on your network, the latencies if
>>         the two protocols would be equivalent and you'd be sending
>>         and receiving about half of your household traffic over IPv6
>>         just like the rest of us without needing to tweak any Happy
>>         Eyeballs settings.
>>         That's up from about 10-15% three years ago. IPv4 is
>>         diminishing, and will be at background radiation levels by
>>         approximately the date at which AusNOG participants decide to
>>         stop blocking new IPv6 deployment.
>>            - mark
>>
>>     On the contrary Mark, if you and others are saying half my
>>     household traffic should be over ipv6, than the other half should
>>     just not be there...
>>
>>     I have my results, on Saturday I sent David an email checking if
>>     it was ok to send it to the list, he has not yet replied, but
>>     that's OK I decided since I am blogging about it anyway, I'll
>>     advise the link to the post later today, so those who want to see
>>     details. It's already written, just need to be polished of typos
>>      :) But in case you don't care to read it for details, the
>>     summary is I found  0.04% of my sites workable on IPv6.
>>
>>     Ohh and Mark Smith's concerns were addressed as well, and only
>>     came into play on 1 site.
>>
>     The indepth details http://bit.ly/1HWhSDq
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     AusNOG mailing list
>     AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net <mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
>     http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20150330/6c95e510/attachment.html>