Subject: [v6ops] IPv6 production test experiences

From: Tore Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 13:56:02 +0100

Hi all,

Ole Trøan and Kurtis Lindqvist asked me to share the attached document
with the WG.  It describes the experiences we had while doing an IPv6
production test on a collection of about 70 Norwegian web sites,
including the largest one in the country.  The sites all provide
Norwegian-language general interest news.

In summary, our experience is that deploying dual stack is not nearly as
problematic as what it was a year ago;  the CTOs in question have both
concluded that dual-stack could be deployed today without fearing a
negative business impact.

However, about 75% of the brokenness we see now comes from Mac users.
OS X 10.6.5 is due to be released any day now, and will most likely fix
the underlying cause by making itself immune to rogue 6to4 RAs.  We have
therefore decided to hold off deploying dual-stack until a week or two
after the release of OS X 10.6.5, in order to give the affected users a
chance to upgrade first.

The remaining brokenness appears to be from users with brokered tunnels,
users participating in IPv6 pilots, and enterprises or similar networks
that have either improperly deployed native IPv6 - especially in
situations where rogue 6to4 RAs are present.  Since these for the most
part constitute power users and networks that are conscious about IPv6
(unlike the Mac users), we have decided to not let their problems hold
us back any longer.

I hope you will find the document interesting, and welcome any comments
or questions you might have.

Best regards,
-- 
Tore Anderson
Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com
Tel: +47 21 54 41 27

---

From: Roger Jørgensen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 18:08:32 +0100

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Tore Anderson
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Ole Trřan and Kurtis Lindqvist asked me to share the attached document
<snip>
> (unlike the Mac users), we have decided to not let their problems hold

There was a sentence in there stating that some ISP are running pilot program
on IPv6 and that could add to the problems, well I can't say I noticed
any of that
at all. I get IPv6 from my ISP, Ventelo and that is a pilot service
but its working
just great since I got it.  I'm running Mac OSX and my better part running
Windows 7, she never knew there was a test going on :)

-- 

Roger Jorgensen           |
[email-masked]          | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no   | [email-masked]

---

From: huang cancan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 18:07:16 +0800

hi, in your report, there is a sentance "My brokenness measurements might be
a bit overstated, perhaps due to IPv6 having on average higher latency than
IPv4", can you explain why the IPv6 have average higer latency than IPv4 in
your case?
Thanks!

Cancan Huang

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 8:56 PM, Tore Anderson <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
>

---

From: Tore Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 11:47:02 +0100

* huang cancan

> hi, in your report, there is a sentance "My brokenness measurements
> might be a bit overstated, perhaps due to IPv6 having on average higher
> latency than IPv4", can you explain why the IPv6 have average higer
> latency than IPv4 in your case?

Hi,

It's based on one or more of the following assumptions being true:

* IPv6 peering being less developed than in IPv4.  For instance, I have
  12-13ms higher RTT to I-root over IPv6 compared to IPv4 because they
  only do IPv4 on my local IX.
* Use of tunneled IPv6 connectivity:
  - especially unmanaged tunnels like 6to4 and Teredo, which could
    conceivably cause extremely nasty trampolines.
  - brokered tunnels to PoPs outside of the optimal IPv4 path.
  - autonomous systems taking tunneled transit to PoPs also outside of
    the IPv4 optimal path.
* Certain routers and similar do only IPv4 forwarding in hardware and
  IPv6 in software, thus causing IPv6-only performance degradation.

I haven't measured latency myself so I have no numbers of my own to back
up these assumptions with, but Google has confirmed the point
about unmanaged tunnels at least:

«6to4 / teredo latency penalty > 50ms»
--
https://sites.google.com/site/ipv6implementors/2010/agenda/09_Colitti_IPv6atGoogle.pdf
--
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-58/content/presentations/Colitti-IPv6atGoogle-RIPE58.pdf

Best regards,