* Posts by Big Chief Running Bare

13 posts • joined 28 Oct 2013

iOS apps must do IPv6

Big Chief Running Bare

IOT management no problem

@Richard12 others have said this is about apps working in an ipv6 only environment. So possible no change to ipv4 environments.

But let's assume your mobile operator moves to ipv6 only on compatible iOS devices. Does this break access to ipv4 iot? I say no. So the iOS network will contain NAT64/DNS64 to connect to legacy ipv4 domains. If you are managing devices using URLS in DNS, no problem, automatically translated by DNS64. If you are connecting to IPv4 addresses direct in the iOS devices browser then apple are allegedly bringing you a bump-in-the-stack to synthesise an ipv6 NAT64 destination to pass you via NAT64. Will NAT64 connect you OK? Yes, if it works via NAT44 today it can work via NAT64. If you need a public address today and a NAT free path, then you will have issues, until v6 end to end. But if that was the case we would have all moved to v6 years ago.

FaceTime, WhatsApp UDP streams AWOL on iOS 9 beta with T-Mo US

Big Chief Running Bare

Another story?

T-Mobile US are pioneers of ipv6-only with android devices using 464xlat and have been for 3 years now. By trying other device types they are again pushing the agenda for all operators strapped for IP. I am sure they will receive a little flak for this bug.

But take your eyes off the operator for a moment and forgive me for asking this: we have a massive organisation with a market leading set of smart devices, so why in 2016 is a full ipv6 build still a beta? (i.e. can you guys test it for us); and the various regional address authorities practically ran out of v4 addressing a year ago?

Nokia, ARM, twisting Intel bid to reinvent the TCP/IP stack for a 5G era

Big Chief Running Bare
Alert

TCP/IP means IP plus transport, transport is the main problem

Most of the criticism should be levelled at TCP and its ability to adapt to the network circumstances. Not sure whether IP is the problem, whether IPv4 or IPv6. Hosts want ubiquitous access to the internet, and IP networks bring that, especially in the nat-free world of IPv6. (Also doing away with intermediate fragmentation and mtu challenges is another unsung joy of IPv6, but I digress). So the main problem is the transport layer, and I think that is what the article is telling us.

Now my other point is that all that is "payload" consideration in mobile networks. IP also exists as an underlay in mobile (between Base station and Core, in case of LTE). This, with the 3GPP protocol GTP over UDP over IP, provides the mobility tunnels that create the mobile bearer. Now it would be easier to design in a replacement to this layer (as opposed to changing the entire internet), as it is standardised by one standard body across all mobile operators, and remains transparent from the mobile users payload. Currently to open up mobile access to non-3GPP access networks, like WLAN and femto cells, another IP layer of IPsec tends to be required, with the GTP held within. This strata is ripe to be optimised! The desire is for 5G to be a unification of access networks, so an optimised layer providing security, mobility and universal connectivity beneath the internet payload would be the goal.

IPv6 is great, says Facebook. For us. And for you a bit, too

Big Chief Running Bare
WTF?

This idea that, by remaining ipv4 and letting other services make the move, somehow makes your ipv4 service faster/less congested is entirely bogus.

Who is using physical instances to provide any of these hops in question? It is logical interfaces on the same physical infrastructure. You have a choice: use NAPT44 or gonwith ipv6 and no NAT whatsoever. Facebook are saying the latter gives better performance. Remove a layer4 service mid hop and your end to end performance improves, seems plausible.

Apple snuggles closer to IPv6

Big Chief Running Bare

Re: Same-same?

There's a prevalence for ipv4 showing a good tcp setup time even though the path isn't optimal for the whole transfer, for example fragmentation. IPV6 takes a little longer e.g. to ensuring no frag, but you get a better persistent connection, and no CGN. Weighting IPv4 down has shown better results.

VPNs are so insecure you might as well wear a KICK ME sign

Big Chief Running Bare

Re: So the good news is . . .

Or the first product to plug holes and get a decent v6 solution - winner takes all.

Australia leads Asia Pac in mobile broadband speeds

Big Chief Running Bare

UK mobe is winning

You seem to have completely failed to notice that the UK is leading the world on average mobile speed according to akamai. I wonder why?

Sleepy Ofcom glances at Internet of Things, rolls over, takes nap

Big Chief Running Bare

failed to set direction

Security is a key factor, but I also think it will be different from the personal security we expect from service providers now. If you look at mobile networks today you will see ipv4 NAT, which will block unsolicited traffic from public networks. Works for 'web traffic' client server type interaction.

With IoT we should not limit the connectivity in this way, we may desire connectivity to be initiated from outside in. Perhaps from supernodes, master nodes in the web that front end the distributed IOT devices. That connectivity demands public addresses, no NAT and in reality IPv6. ( The operators are not going to splurge their last public v4 ranges on cheap devices on cheap connections).

So something has to give, either we stay with the bogus client-server model or the offerings will get more expensive and more complex (same thing) or we set some aspiration of IPv6. Ofcom should be promoting the optimal solution for the customer here not allowing status quo.

And if you think IoT is all about kettle/fridge/oven get over it. This is about healthcare, manufacturing, construction, shipping, drones, transport.

You go fast, but we go 'further' and 'deeper' – Voda tells 'Speedy' EE

Big Chief Running Bare
Meh

what else can he say?

What else can he say when his network is slow and late, and only just starting to invest after the other put the wind up them?

Blighty's laziness over IPv6 will cost us on the INTERNETS - study

Big Chief Running Bare

Re: Alan Brown When other countries move to IPv6 it will free up IPv4 address....

@matt bryant, time to define "drowning"!

The world will not end, existing services on the internet continue to work.

But the internet is all about growth. In an ip address stiffled world then complexity rises. As nat is layered on nat and kludge on kludge then to bring on next million users is more expensive each time. Rising costs in those centralised gateways and in the savvy staff you need to run the complex network.

I've seen country wide isps looking to divide the country into regions to stretch ip addressing. Others virtualising data centres just to provide pods of consumers with the usual services that could be amalgamated if addressing was unique. Costs rise when they should be getting lower. And complexity and kludge makes services flakey and blocks innovation (see Alan Browns experience with carrier grade NAT. Now enough of the content is dual stack the networks will drag us kicking and screaming in to the new world, else face a lingering decay.

Big Chief Running Bare
Alert

Re: Does IPv6 gives each device a permanant IP address -- if so boon for spies and criminals.

IPv6 is same as a public IPv4 address in this regard. You can have dynamic publics and static publics, what ever your provider offers. To suggest this is an IPv6 thing is wrong. It exists today. Its private addresses and NAT that disappear with IPV6. (And you can achieve any perceived security benefits from NAT with a basic v6 firewall on your router if that's what you want- block outside -in connections being made)

Big Chief Running Bare

Re: When other countries move to IPv6 it will free up IPv4 address space for the laggards.

If that's true it relies on these countries (or companies) handing ip ranges back. History tells us this isnt the case. The best case is there is a market for ipv4. I seem to remember $10 per ip being the rate. No doubt that is passed on to the customer's bill! Being the last to move to ipv6 looks a flawed strategy if you expect networks to grow.

Big Chief Running Bare
Happy

forget fixed, its about mobile?

I am interested to know what people think if their mobile operator took them to ipv6? You are already put through NAT with ipv4 on mobile unless you are of the lucky few with a public address. Would NAT-free ipv6 be good?

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019