[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: afrinic-rpd
Subject: Re: [rpd] [Community-Discuss] inputs on IPv4 Inter-RIR policy proposals (off-topic)
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd () afrinic ! net>
Date: 2019-07-02 13:51:59
Message-ID: 79B38CF8-8CD8-4062-81C6-BEF02FFD8661 () consulintel ! es
[Download RAW message or body]
[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]
Hi Andrew,
El 2/7/19 7:29, "Andrew Alston" <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com> escribió:
Hi Jordi,
Just saw this:
> In addition to that, there are some advantages such as the opex savings. It is less \
> expensive to manage IPv6-only with IPv4aaS across your network than pure \
> dual-stack. May be not 50% > savings, but still impacting a lot.
I'm really curious to hear you say this – because I am not sure I agree – I think \
it largely depends on how the v6 deployment is done.
I think I said at the beginning of my email. Every network is a case, so I was doing \
a generic case, based on my own experience in many deployments.
I see many networks doing dual-stack all the way thru, and *not* doing IPv6 \
monitoring, which is really wrong. Happy Eyeballs solve the problem most of the time, \
but of course they aren't doing it right. If they do a good monitoring, they will \
need to do the same for IPv4 and IPv6, which definitively, consumes resources for the \
implementation and for ensuring the continuity of "both" networks.
Even in the case of cellular networks, if you have different PDP contexts, APNs, \
etc., means extra cost for licenses.
I've seen the same for some provisioning systems in broadband, they charge you double \
for dual-stack vs only IPv6.
In our case – we insist on enforced single-topology dual-stack and I've never seen \
a cost increase as a result. Nor have I seen a cost increase in the hardware – \
there is one particular vendor who – if you forget to ask for v6 licenses, will \
attempt to charge you for them afterwards, but after they tried that once – well, \
let's just say I convinced them not to try that again with us.
The costs of running dual-stack often come from operational overheads – and that \
can be greatly reduced by running a single topology and treating v6 as a fundamental \
building block the same way you treat v4. As I've said in other emails – there are \
still fundamental problems that I see with a variety of services on v6 – \
particularly in the MPLS world – and we're working very hard on solving this, but \
even with that, the base routing can still be done dual-stack single-topology without \
massive cost increases.
So – can you explain why you believe v6 is more expensive opex wise? It's a really \
interesting viewpoint.
Thanks
Andrew
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. \
The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named \
above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use \
of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is \
strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the \
intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the \
contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is \
strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the \
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
[Attachment #5 (text/html)]
<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" \
xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" \
xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" \
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type \
content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 \
(filtered medium)"><style><!-- /* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Times New Roman \(Cuerpo en alfa";
panose-1:2 2 6 3 5 4 5 2 3 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EstiloCorreo18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EstiloCorreo19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=ES link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p \
class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=ES-TRAD \
style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Hi Andrew,</span><span \
lang=ES-TRAD style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p \
class=MsoNormal><span lang=ES-TRAD \
style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div><p \
class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>El 2/7/19 7:29, "Andrew Alston" \
<<a href="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com">Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com</a>> \
escribió:<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal \
style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal \
style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US>Hi Jordi, </span><o:p></o:p></p><p \
class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span \
lang=EN-US> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal \
style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US>Just saw this:</span><o:p></o:p></p><p \
class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><br><span lang=EN-US>> </span>In \
addition to that, there are some advantages such as the opex savings. It is less \
expensive to manage IPv6-only with IPv4aaS across your network than pure dual-stack. \
May be not 50% <span lang=EN-US>> </span>savings, but still impacting a \
lot.<br><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span \
lang=EN-US>I'm really curious to hear you say this – because I am not sure I agree \
– I think it largely depends on how the v6 deployment is \
done.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span \
style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span \
lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt'>I think I said at the beginning of my email. \
Every network is a case, so I was doing a generic case, based on my own experience in \
many deployments.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US \
style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span \
lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt'>I see many networks doing dual-stack all the way \
thru, and *<b>not</b>* doing IPv6 monitoring, which is really wrong. Happy Eyeballs \
solve the problem most of the time, but of course they aren't doing it right. If they \
do a good monitoring, they will need to do the same for IPv4 and IPv6, which \
definitively, consumes resources for the implementation and for ensuring the \
continuity of "both" networks.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span \
lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p \
class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt'>Even in the case of \
cellular networks, if you have different PDP contexts, APNs, etc., means extra cost \
for licenses.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US \
style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span \
lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt'>I've seen the same for some provisioning systems \
in broadband, they charge you double for dual-stack vs only \
IPv6.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span \
lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal \
style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US>In our case – we insist on enforced \
single-topology dual-stack and I've never seen a cost increase as a result. Nor \
have I seen a cost increase in the hardware – there is one particular vendor who \
– if you forget to ask for v6 licenses, will attempt to charge you for them \
afterwards, but after they tried that once – well, let's just say I convinced them \
not to try that again with us.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal \
style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p \
class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US>The costs of running \
dual-stack often come from operational overheads – and that can be greatly reduced \
by running a single topology and treating v6 as a fundamental building block the same \
way you treat v4. As I've said in other emails – there are still fundamental \
problems that I see with a variety of services on v6 – particularly in the MPLS \
world – and we're working very hard on solving this, but even with that, the base \
routing can still be done dual-stack single-topology without massive cost \
increases.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span \
lang=EN-US> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal \
style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US>So – can you explain why you believe v6 \
is more expensive opex wise? It's a really interesting \
viewpoint.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span \
lang=EN-US> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal \
style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US>Thanks</span><o:p></o:p></p><p \
class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span \
lang=EN-US> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal \
style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US>Andrew</span><o:p></o:p></p><p \
class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span \
lang=EN-US> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal \
style='margin-left:35.4pt'><br><br><br><o:p></o:p></p></div><br>**********************************************<br>
IPv4 is over<br>
Are you ready for the new Internet ?<br>
http://www.theipv6company.com<br>
The IPv6 Company<br>
<br>
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. \
The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named \
above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use \
of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is \
strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the \
intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the \
contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is \
strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the \
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.<br> <br>
</body></html>
_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
RPD@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic