nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 Deployment
From: John Curran <jcurran () istaff org>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 22:07:21 -0400
At 6:28 PM -0700 5/30/07, Randy Bush wrote:
well, you get two points for copping to it. i lay on the train tracks and was squashed.
Well, I became a contentious objector... (RFC1669). One can confirm a real sense of humor to the cosmos, because I now get to be lead advocate for the very scenario I noted back then really might not be viable... :-)
i like 40 more bits as well as the next geek. but how the hell do we get from here to there? either we sort out how a v6-only site gets to the internet, there is still ipv4 space at every site and all that implies, or the users are screwed.
We aggressively work on getting "little" Internet content sites (aka the 'servers' of new Internet endsites) reachable via IPv6, whether by native IPv6 to endsite, tunnel to endsite, or tunnel transition mechanism within the ISP. ISPs need to take the lead on this for now new sites, by actively promoting IPv6 with IPv4 connections. Doing that, plus the significant effort of IPv6 backbone work is serious work. Big content providers have to figure out how to do native IPv6 (or fake it really well) before the first IPv6-only user arrives... Their readiness has to be 100% on that day (or the day they can't themselves obtain additional IPv4 space), but it's fairly academic until that point. /John
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 Deployment Fred Heutte (May 30)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment Randy Bush (May 30)
- Operators: the IETF's Dark Gods David W. Hankins (May 31)
- Re: Operators: the IETF's Dark Gods Roy (May 31)
- Operators: the IETF's Dark Gods David W. Hankins (May 31)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment Fred Baker (May 30)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment John Curran (May 30)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment Randy Bush (May 30)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment Randy Bush (May 30)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment Valdis . Kletnieks (May 30)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment John Curran (May 30)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment Randy Bush (May 30)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment Randy Bush (May 30)