spurring transition to ipv6 -- make it faster

Tomas L. Byrnes tomb at byrneit.net
Wed Oct 15 02:45:27 UTC 2008

If P2P became IPV6, and therefore universally endpoint addressable, and
therefore seeded by every download, as opposed to solely seeded by those
who have enough clue to configure the inbound ports through their IPV4
NAT, then the bandwidth problem should solve itself, at least for the
widely popular downloads. 

Assuming every downloader could also seed, for the popular stuff, the
traffic would be primarily local, which is not where the bottleneck is
in most cases. 

Of course, this is assuming that the reason the SPs are opposed to P2P
isn't related to their desire to derive revenue from the content that is
non-ratable if delivered over P2P, but that is a different topic.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Nathan Ward [mailto:nanog at daork.net]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 3:33 PM
>To: Niall Donegan
>Cc: nanog at merit.edu
>Subject: Re: spurring transition to ipv6 -- make it faster
>On 15/10/2008, at 8:56 AM, Niall Donegan wrote:
>> Scott Doty wrote:
>>> After all, if most p2p traffic is v4, prioritizing ipv6 (as a
>>> concept) should improve the user experience.
>> How long do you think it will take for the P2P software authors to
>> transition over to IPv6? I'll bet that P2P users will be a lot more
>> likely to use IPv6 over Aunt May checking her email once a day.
>Sorry, it happened already.
>Presentation I gave at APNIC26 on the subject:
>A Teredo/6to4 relay in Finland operated by CSC/FUNET:
>Note the massive increase of traffic. It ramps up the *day* uTorrent
>1.8 came out.
>I have long said:
>1) IPv4 will continue to exist for web/email/etc. servers.
>2) When ISPs run out of IPv4 space and start NATing their customers,
>IPv6 will become the new way to do applications that require end-to-
>end. This is *why* Teredo exists - so Microsoft applications that
>require end-to-end can get it, without having to implement a NAT
>traversal stack in each and every app. Teredo is now available on most
>3) (2) is clearly happening already, with bit torrent applications.
>It's an easy way to do NAT traversal for free.
>4) When IPv6 is widely enough supported, then maybe someone will run a
>web/email/etc. server on IPv6 only.
>There is a lot of work to attempt to keep IPv4 end-to-end alive when
>SP-NAT happens. Personally, I think attempting to prolong IPv4 end-to-
>end is a waste of time when IPv6 does it already, and all these
>proposals require applications to be updated to support dynamic ports
>and things. If you're updating the application, just make it support
>IPv6. For most applications this is trivial.
>Nathan Ward

More information about the NANOG mailing list