Subject: RE: (ngtrans) shipworm and anycast Was: Review of draft-ietf-ngtrans-shipworm-03.txt

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 06:57:06 +0100 (CET)

> The problem with that approach is assuming that the consumer even knows
> enough about what protocol is running to pressure the ISP. Consumers
> type name-strings, or click on links, then magic happens. The only real
> way for them to pressure an ISP is to consume bandwidth (10% tunnel
> overhead) that the ISP could have sold to someone else or delayed an
> upgrade by 3 months. I would argue the making the presentation of the
> IPv6 service to the application 'as good as it can be' is our real goal,
> and market dynamics will sort the rest out.

What type of market dynamics? Just the fact that there is 10% less packet
overhead?

I think one of the fallacies of your approach is that it doesn't
provide a *name* by which an ISP that provides native IPv6 service
can label themselves when competing for customers.
Hiding the fact that IPv6 is used from the users might for that reason prevent
the very market dynamics you wish for and instead make shipworm
a permanent feature of the Internet architecture.
That would be bad for IPv6 deployment since shipworm can never obtain
the same robustness as native IPv6 service.

   Erik

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 10:20:53 -0800

> the same robustness as native IPv6 service.

You are assuming that the consumer cares about the technical difference.
What they care about is a service, like peer-to-peer games that work
without having to manually configure something for each new one. The
only ones that care about the technical difference between IPv4 & IPv6
are the protocol designers and the operators that see a cost increase.
The point we need to be making to operators is that they have a cost
increase any way we go from here, but the lower cost option is native
IPv6, not perpetual use of transition mechanisms. At the same time it is
not our place to dictate how a service gets delivered. If an operator
believes their most cost effective path is to maintain an IPv4 core with
tunneling, and their customers are happy with the service, where is the
problem? As long as the end points are receiving an IPv6 service does it
matter what level of grief is happening below that? Look at IPv4 over
PPPOE over ATM over SONET and tell me that the end points care about
optimization or specific technologies. The only time those issues matter
is when the service becomes too fragile to maintain or lower cost
options drive an operator to switch. If we haven't made native IPv6
cheaper than the transition tools, operators will never switch, and IPv4
will become the logical replacement for F/R.

Tony

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 13:51:30 -0500

> without having to manually configure something for each new one.

right.  the trick is to get consumers to realize that they can get
better service if their ISP has a feature called IPv6.  

and if this is going to work, then we need to make sure that the
feature called IPv6 actually provides the functionality needed
to provide that better service.

Keith

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 10:48:44 +0100 (CET)

> You are assuming that the consumer cares about the technical difference.

I didn't say that - I said that in order for the market forces to work
there has to be *labels* associated with different things so that
the ISPs can communicate their offerings to their customers.

This is analogous to cable vs. DSL service. Do you think the customers
care about the technical different?
Yet, the providers dump junk mail in my mailbox every week with "DSL" or
"Broadband" (whatever AT&T uses) in very large letters on the outside.

By saying that good IPv6 service can be provided with either
shipworm or native service, you seem to expect that the ISPs will 
invent some *labels* to distinguish between the two.

> IPv6, not perpetual use of transition mechanisms.

With cost you mean saving the tunnel overhead here I assume.
If you make shipworm as good as it can be (performance, robustness)
apart from that tunnel overhead all the costs (less robustness than
native IPv4; bummer to troble-shoot the direct paths NAT-to-NAT)
are born by the user and not the ISP.

> At the same time it is
> matter what level of grief is happening below that?

The risk with making shipworm as good as it can be is that it might never
go away which will make the net effect a less robust network.
And it might be that IPv6 over shipworm ends up being less robust
than IPv4 over NAT.

> Look at IPv4 over
> optimization or specific technologies.

But that is also an argument that the operators don't care much about
tunneling overhead (which ATM eating about 10% of the sonet bw).
What was the ISPs incentive to getting rid of shipworm tunneling again? :-)

   Erik

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 10:10:51 -0800

> the ISPs can communicate their offerings to their customers.

But the context for the label has to be in terms of the service the
customer cares about, not technology for its own sake.

> invent some *labels* to distinguish between the two.

No, I was assuming that if a service provider could keep their customers
happy through a shipworm (or any tunneling mechanism) service, they
would not need to make any claims. If the customers are using IPv6
end-to-end and are happy with the service, what value is there in an
IPv6 label from another provider?

> are born by the user and not the ISP.

Which translated back to dissatisfied customers who find another
provider. I know that in the case of a monopoly that is not always
possible, so maybe the IPv6 Forum needs to make a case to the
regulators.

> And it might be that IPv6 over shipworm ends up being less robust

Even your fundemental assumption is that shipworm service will never be
as good as a native IPv6, so there is no real risk that it will persist
forever unless native service is significantly more expensive for the
ISP.

> What was the ISPs incentive to getting rid of shipworm

Fair enough... It comes down to competitive pressure based on another
provider being able to offer a cheaper service overall because they are
able to sell the bit-times that would have been used by tunnel overhead
to another set of customers. If there is no competition there is no
incentive to minimize overhead.

Tony