Published on November 30th, 2015
The first presentation was by Geoff Huston, the Chief Scientist at APNIC. He compared the IPv6 failure rate to the IPv4 failure rate. In general both are improving over the internet, but IPv6 6to4 failure is still at 9% in 2015 and IPv6 unicast failure is at 2%. This can be compared to IPv4 failure at .2%. When the connection is actually made, IPv6 performs as fast as IPv4. Geoff’s conclusion, of course, is that the failure rate of IPv6 is higher than the failure rate of IPv4.
Dario Rossi of Telecom ParisTech presented on the performance impact of Carrier Grade Network Address Translation (CGN).
The purpose of CGN is to allow many users to share one public IPv4 address. The finding presented by Dario was that CGN has no impact on the performance – that having one user with one IPv4 address is no more effective than having many users leveraging one IPv4 address using CGN.
The third presentation of interest was George Michaelson’s presentation on “Drilling Down into Networks from the APNIC Data.” I am not sure that this was George’s intent, but my takeaway was that there is a way to implement IPv6 called 464xlat, which is not supported by Apple iOS. This is important because several carriers have implemented IPv6 using 464xlat, which means that they won’t be able to carry Apple iphones over IPv6 until either Apple supports 464xlat, or until the carrier changes the way IPv6 is implemented. In George’s presentation the carriers that appear to have implemented IPv6 counter to Apple’s iOS strategy include T-Mobile, South Korea Telecom, AT&T Mobility, Sprint, and Orange Poland. George did include in his analysis that, in the right circumstances, 464xlat can boost IPv6 capability and reduce pressure on CGN/NAT. However, it would seem like 464xlat is an impediment to full conversion to IPv6 that needs to be corrected in the longer term.
There is a lot of contradictory information about the success of IPv6 in real life. It appears to me that strategies for stretching IPv4, such as CGN, are currently more effective than IPv6 standalone. This is based on IPv6 failure rates and applications not being supported over IPv6, and that the RIR’s are seeing strong evidence of continued IPv4 use in late 2015.