Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Jun 8, 2011, at 6:09 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:
> > On Jun 8, 2011, at 5:47 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 7, 2011, at 9:59 PM, Martin Millnert wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Owen,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:
> > > > > > LSN is required when access providers come across the following two
> > > > > > combined constraints:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >        1.      No more IPv4 addresses to give to customers.
> > > > > >        2.      No ability to deploy those customers on IPv6.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2 has little bearing on need of LSN to access v4.  Insufficient amount
> > > > > of IPv4 addresses => LSN required.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Martin
> > > >
> > > > No, if you have the option of deploying the customers on IPv6, you don't
> > > > need LSN.
> > > >
> > > > The problem is that until the vast majority of content is dual-stack, you can't
> > > > deploy customers on IPv6 without IPv4.
> > >
> > > cough cough NAT64/DNS64 ...
> >
> > Doesn't solve the problem unless your users are all on cell-phone browsers
> > that don't do a lot of the things most users do with real internet connections.
>
> Most of my users are on cell phone browsers :)
>
> Furthermore, i can choose which ones get ipv4-only NAT44 and which get
> ipv6-only + NAT64
>
> Now, only if there was major cell phone OEM support ....
>
>
> Also, i would like to extend the idea that as IPv6 becomes dominant in
> the next few years (pending access networks), the need for IPv4 access
> will wane and LSN for the IPv4 will become more acceptable as IPv4 is
> just the long tail.

Agreed... However, where I differ is that I believe it is content and services
which will drive the ability for IPv4 to be considered long tail. If all of the
content and services were IPv6-capable today, the need for LSN would
be very near zero (limited to the consumer devices that need to be
upgraded/replaced to understand IPv6.)

However, as it stands currently, a consumer would not consider an IPv6
connection with NAT64 or other LSN to be equivalent to what they expect
today (unless they're on a cell-phone where they already expect the
internet experience to be completely degraded).


Owen