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

Guillermo Cicileo gcicileo at gmail.com
Fri Aug 26 12:56:29 EDT 2016


Marco:



On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Marco Hogewoning <marcoh at ripe.net> wrote:

> 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?
>

Our model is based on previous work from Lee Howard that estimates this
impact for different applications and the pre-filled numbers in the web
page are based on that. But an operator can adapt this to its actual
operation and change the numbers to reflect its own reality. The affected
apps could be set to 0 if you want, it's your own choice, but see below...


>
> 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.
>

I recently heard the story of a big ISP in our region that was severely
affected by Pokemon Go app. Lot of users complaining for not being able to
use the app trough CGN. Unfortunately the information is not public, so we
can't share it.
One of the problems with CGN is the limit on the number of sessions per
user and Polkemon Go uses a lot. Take a look at this article:
https://www.proceranetworks.com/blog/pokemon-go-the-latest-internet-craze-how-is-it-impacting-your-network



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

To an IPv6 enabled ISP or to some ISP that still has IPv4 addresses.
Most of the ISPs we interviewed confessed that they have problems with
residential users and CGN. So their policy is: when a user complains
enough, they give them a public IP (so the user will get a "traditional
NAT" and not NAT444).

They are deploying CGN on the mobile network and freeing some IPs for the
fixed network because of this kind of problems: the variety of applications
users have in their homes is much more demanding than those on the mobile
network (except for unexpected new apps like the Pokemon Go case).



>
> 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,
>

Regards,

    Guillermo.


>
> 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
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org/attachments/20160826/fcde0938/attachment.html>


More information about the Bp_ipv6 mailing list