User talk:Internet2Guru

IPv6 dual stack
The discussions have been moved to the IPv6 article on Talk:IPv6.

Cyber Bully and Harassment By the Few Self-Proclaimed “Editors” Cannot Be Tolerated!
If the content of the Wikipedia articles are not contributed, maintained, and protected by the SMEs who are technically qualified, intellectually capable, and generously willing to make the contributions to the content creation and integrity of the relevant articles, but rather only by a bunch of ignorant, clueless, lazy, injudicious, and ludicrous self-proclaimed “editors” who are pitifully unqualified technically, and intellectually incapable to contribute a single word of meaning to the discussion on the subject matter or to the content of the technical articles in the Wikipedia, other than simply trying to constantly bully and harass those SMEs and other interested parties who are actively engaging in the intelligent, technical discussions regarding the subjet matter and the integrity of the content of the articles involved, I will not continue to waste my time and resources to deal with those cyber bullies, neither will I be interested in any further discussions on the subject matter in this forum.

Moreover, I will no longer be associated with and/or interested in protecting the integrity of the content of the articles in the Wikipedia to which I have contributed moving forward. It would be a SHAME, DISGRACE, and TRAGEDY if rest of the world will allow such kind of bully and harassing behaviors of the few “editors” to continue in the days to come. Internet2Guru (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry to hear you're leaving (if I'm reading this correctly).


 * If you do decide to stay, you probably want to read a few other talk pages, like perhaps Talk:Theodora_(wife_of_Justinian_I) (it's not a great talk page, but it shows what other people are doing). The thing to take away is that people usually add stuff at the bottom. You can either add a new section at the bottom of the page, or add a new paragraph to a relevant section. Then to make it more readable you can indent your paragraph with a ":", like I'm doing. You put your last two contributions in quite confusing places, right at the top of earlier content. Please take a look at WP:BOTTOMPOST.


 * Also you should get a better feel for what Wikipedia is. The main idea is that there should be some references to published work. Some expert putting together a complex argument ("X means Y, and we also know Z, so therefore A) is explicitly a bad thing - see WP:OR. If the published source says that the problem is steering traffic (due to dual routing tables) then that is what should be in the article, rather than an expert insisting that the quantity of traffic also increases.


 * The other thing to take away is that Wikipedia is collaborative. Calling people names is not a good way of achieving this. Ttwaring (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you must realize that others aren't out to get you here and they think the same of you. But to get better treatment, the personal attacks must stop. Others' credentials on a subject are not your remit to comment on and are irrelevant in this case. I understand nearly all the technical terms you posted on the talk page and agree with Kbrose and Rwessel.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Internet hierarchy
This is absolutely my last word on the subject, as I'm concerned that the more I discuss my day job, the more likely I am to make it obvious who I am. I'd like to address your concerns about both the top tier of the Internet, and the smaller providers.

Tier 1 networks sell Internet transit to smaller providers. They advertise the available prefixes using BGP. They have control over which prefixes they accept, which prefixes they advertise, and the traffic levels they signed up to provide. If they are offering IPv6 transit to their customers then this indicates that they have looked at all the factors you have outlined (route table size, security, etc.) and made a commercial decision that they will deal with these. Nobody is forcing them to offer IPv6 transit. I've just been to look at 2001:418:0::/32 on Level 3's looking glass and I see that Level 3 (Tier 1) are advertising NTT's prefix to their customers. So unless these people are complete idiots, they are making a business out of selling IPv6 at Tier 1. [In NTT's case they are selling IPv6 transit to Wikipedia]

Smaller providers also have the choice about what they advertise. They can just exchange IPv4 prefixes if they want. Many, many internet ASes do just this. So Facebook running dual stack has no impact on them. The customers of the smaller providers get just IPv4 service. They use the A record that Facebook provides, and set up TCP to that IPv4 address. If the small prover performs "due diligence" on their routers, noting the risk factors you have mentioned, then they may find that they can offer IPv6 themselves. So the scenario you are outlining (companies choose dual stack and make others suffer) never happens. Everyone is a willing participant in the routing table they are advertising. Of course, they may not be competent, and in the early days of IPv6 there were many crappy tunnels, and some black-holing, but it's looking pretty healthy since World IPv6 Day and World IPv6 Launch Day.

Aside from the point that everyone routing IPv6 has opted in, there's another thing you might be interested in. In the late 90s and early 00s, there was a hierarchical Internet, where the Tier 1s peered with each other, and sold transit to their customers, which were often regional ISPs, or Tier 2 providers homed to multiple Tier 1s. Both eyeball networks (e.g. NTL Cable in the UK) and content networks (e.g. pets.com) would buy transit from Tier 1 or Tier 2 carriers. However, the current peering landscape looks a lot different. Pick a big eyeball network (I'm going to pick Comcast because I'm connected to it), and a big content network (I'm picking Facebook as they have a cool IPv6 address). Then run traceroute6 2a03:2880:f022:6:face:b00c::2 and see what you get. It looks a lot to me like Facebook and Comcast connect directly to each other, which is not unexpected given traffic levels and the way things are done in the 2010s. So not only are the Tier 1s selling IPv6 transit, and the small companies free to opt in or not to IPv6, but also a huge fraction of Internet traffic isn't going through either of them anyway. Those big networks (bigger than the Tier 1s in many cases) have looked at the downsides of dual stack, and the downsides of not doing dual stack, and they have made their decision.

The problem I have with your "traffic" additions on IPv6 is that this all comes down to an economic analysis. Carriers will X% more cost because of these disadvantages you outline, Y% less cost through avoiding NAT, helpdesk insanity, and address shortages. It's not enough to simply assert that the disadvantages should stop you doing it - you need a credible reference that this is the case. You also need a credible reference for "big problems coming" stuff about overloading the Internet.

From now on I sit on my hands and try not to respond :-)   Please play nicely with the other editors, and move to Talk:IPv6 instead of here. - Ttwaring (talk) 05:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and contributions to the discussions here on the dual-stack mode of operation, Ttwaring, even though I am not sure how relevant are the information provided in this section in regard to our original discussions, notwithstanding their obvious usefulness for background information.Internet2Guru (talk) 05:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)