IPv6 deployment for hosting and developers

Talk on the implications of deploying IPv6 for hosting platforms and developers.

Rough notes

• Stats on incoming traffic from hosting providers
• Stats on outgoing traffic from ISPs(?)
• Percentage of sites running IPv6
• Percentage of other services running IPv6
• Example: Russell Group universities with AAAA for their main website.
• Some very big news sites
• BBC iPlayer?
• Netflix

Problems

• Why is IPv6 deployment so slow?
• Adding AAAA records 'breaks' SSH.
• Mail over IPv6 without SPF and DKIM stops delivery to large mail providers (e.g. Google).
• If multiple protocols are available, which should be preferred? Linux seems to go for IPv6 first, but any which prefer IPv4 will never see the v6 service.
• What is the benefit for hosting platform customers?
• IPv6 deployment can and does break things.
• Benefits are vague and in future.
• IPv6 is like PHP 7 - yes you should do it but there's limited immediate quantifiable benefit to the customer.
• IPv4 works. The only problem is a lack of addresses, but you can hack around that, and it doesn't matter to incumbents.
• Double the number of connectivity tests to run (assuming dual-stack).
• Firewall solutions and edge routers might not support it - expensive to replace

Competition concerns

• RIPE 733: "The size of the allocation made will be exactly one /24.", "The sum of all allocations made to a single LIR by the RIPE NCC is limited to a maximum of 256 IPv4 addresses (a single /24). If this allocation limit has been reached or exceeded, an LIR cannot request an IPv4 allocation under this policy."
• Who regulates RIPE et al? They have power to allocate a scarce and valuable resource.

Takeaways

• Deploying IPv6 at the hosting end can be a lot of work
• But you should still do it
• Forget starting a hosting provider
• 'Buy IPv4 addresses, they're not making them anymore'