[Bp_ipv6] Can we do the math? ( was [MEAC ICANN] Fwd: Interesting IPv6 metrics)

Marco Hogewoning marcoh at ripe.net
Fri Aug 26 09:06:40 EDT 2016


Thanks for that Guillermo,

I hadn’t seen this particular one, but have come across similar models.

Question to the group at large, I again see a tag "Aplicaciones afectadas directamente por la existencia del NAT” and I always wonder, is that really true?

I know that as an historic artefact yes, NAT had severe impact on particular protocols, but does that really still hold true?

Disregarding NAT444, I think we can safely assume that >90% of the residential wireline Internet connections have at least one layer of NAT. Especially in cases where it involves a Playstation there is an extreme likelihood that the connection is shared with another device.I am not in a position to disclose details, but I have reason to believe that in certain markets a substantial part of the wireline access these days is also seen using at least two layers of NAT.

Of course in wireless, the fact that you will see at least one layer of NAT is a given and when used in a domestic environment, sharing the connection means NAT444.

There is always that nagging claim that game consoles won’t work with NAT and that it will be a source of massive losses both in support calls and customer churn when you deploy a NAT.

Is that really true?

Sony had shipped 55 million PS4 boxes at the end of 2015, at which point Microsoft was believed to have sold 20 million Xbox One units. That is quite a substantial number.

- Knowing that in certain markets >90% of the boxes would not work, would they even ship it?
- If it won’t work in NAT environments, would they have sold 55 million units?

For sure there will be some negative effects, but by now I think we can expect that development ia aware enough to make the system work around a NAT or two.

The same goes for P2P, the other one that is always flagged as “will break”. I am pretty sure the copyright people would applaud if it was really the case that P2P would not be able to work around a NAT, because it would be extinct by now. Sadly for them, also in this case it has been fixed.

NATs are a fact of life, like it or not, and developing, manufacturing or marketing any product or solution that will not work when faced with NAT is commercial suicide. You will simply not succeed, nobody will buy your product and it will be your phone ringing off the hook with complaints.

On the predicted churn when deploying NAT444, where would a customer go? To the other carrier that uses NAT444?

I dunno, happy to hear other people’s thoughts on how big of a thread NAT really is to day-to-day use of common applications and equipment?

Enjoy the weekend,

MarcoH

> On 25 Aug 2016, at 16:54, Guillermo Cicileo <gcicileo at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Marco:
> 
> Have you tried the "interactive economic model" we have at LACNIC? It's a sort of excel model that you mentioned. You can play with many variables to estimate the costs of different solutions:
> 
> http://stats.labs.lacnic.net/PROYECTOCAF/modelo/
> 
> The current values are from Latin American ISPs, but you can tune it for different economies (it's not in English yet, but I think you could understand the variables). 
> 
> The model is explained in chapter 6 of the CAF-LACNIC study (and chapter 5 also): 
> http://portalipv6.lacnic.net/wp-content/caf-lacnic/CAF-LACNIC-IPv6-Deployment-Social-Economic-Development-in-LAC.pdf
> 
> Please tell me what you think.
> 
> Regards,
> 
>       Guillermo.
> 
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Marco Hogewoning <marcoh at ripe.net> wrote:
> (This may not reflect my employers opinion or even reality as a whole)
> 
> All,
> 
> Exec summary: 5 year ROI on IPv6 for a larger-than-life mobile carrier in the US can be gestimated at 225 million USD.
> 
> Disclaimer: I might be off by a zero or two (factor 10/100) as a result of assumptions or flaky math :)
> 
> Can’t find the original email on this thread, but somewhere Jan wrote:
> 
> > I asked Cameron Byrne from T-Mobile USA how many mobile devices do they
> > have now on their network using IPv6 connectivity and his estimation was
> > around 48 million.
> >
> > Cheers, Jan
> 
> Was chatting with Silvia the other day, wondering if we can piece it together….
> 
> Curious mind wants to know:
> 
> - How many customers are in this network?
> 
> The answer (Q2 financial reporting) is 67,3 million (call it 67 for ease)
> 
> We have them apparently also on record saying 50% of the traffic is IPv6. This doesn’t say much unless we know:
> 
> - How much traffic is on that network?
> 
> Now, this needs a bit of reading between the lines and guessing, but the Q2 investor report has one interesting bit where they brag on quality:
> 
>         "In the second quarter of 2016, T-Mobile’s average 4G LTE download speed was 22.4 Mbps compared to Verizon at “
> 
> So the average customer has 22 Mbps, and 67 million of them ((22*10^6) *( 67 * 10^6)) gives around 1,5 petabit/s, which is a rather big number
> 
> In fact unlikely that all of them are pushing 22 mb _all_ of the time and I guess we can figure in some oversubscription. Conservative estimate of 1:1000 would bring the total average traffic down to 1,4 terabit/s, 50% of which is IPv6 :) (more likely the overbooking is a factor 10 higher, but let’s stick to this).
> 
> - How much does this cost to transport that amount of bits?
> 
> We don’t know the number for T-mobile, but we have a credible source in Swisscom:
> 
>         http://www.swissipv6council.ch/sites/default/files/docs/map_martin_gysi_ipv6_council.pdf says difference is 6350 CHF.
> 
> So, passing 1 gb/s through CGN costs 8300 USD, shipping the same amount of traffic on IPv6 is only 1700 (which btw is 5 times, cheaper, not 6 as often claimed by hearsay on social media).
> 
> Putting this all together:
> 
> If 50% of the traffic (0.7 tbit/s) really has moved, the cost saving in transport is in the order of 4.6 million USD per month at the current rate.
> 
> Now of course this meant that a) the had a huge spend on IPv6 b) started with zero return. But still ever since they started to roll out, they have been collecting some money back from the first IPv6 bit shipped.
> 
> I’m too stupid to figure out how to get Excel to model this across the past 36 months, but if I am not mistaking in lineair (which it isn’t) you end with 86 million.
> 
> Last question remains:
> 
> - How much did it cost them and is 36 months a reasonable ROI?
> 
> Or can we extend to 5 years (at which point you are around 225 million USD).
> 
> - Is 225 million a reasonable cost estimate to get a network with 70 million users to IPv6?
> 
> MarcoH
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bp_ipv6 mailing list
> Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org
> 





More information about the Bp_ipv6 mailing list