Re: Moving to IPv6 (Was: NANOG 40 agenda posted)

[Brandon Butterworth <brandon () rd bbc co uk>]

> > Because for IPv6 to be useful to the masses, content is required.

Indeed. I'd hoped there would be time to finish the multicast project
first. I'll kick off getting BBC content up on v6

> The really big problem is that
> there is a case that when you do enable AAAA's on your service that
> suddenly there is a possibility that some user can't reach your site
> properly anymore as they don't have proper connectivity to your site
> over IPv6.

I'll start with a stand alone site that users elect to visit while
testing

When it goes on the main site it'll probably be a peers only
service which they can opt into (as we use DNS LB we can return AAAA
only to participating ISPs) if they are ready to handle the user
support needed

> > It occurs to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, but in your model of this
> > transition there becomes little benefit to moving customers to IPv6 at
> > all if being stuffed behind a v4 NAT or HTTP proxies counts as "Internet
> > connectivity".

Plenty of people think Internet connectivity = HTTP and are happy in
their little world

> They get the benefit of using IPv6 and thus full end to end
> connectivity for all their hosts, instead of receiving only 1 single
> IPv4 address. I see that as a real improvement, and it is a model that
> a lot of people are very happy with in using.

But one not to be assumed. It's unlikely we'll give end to end
access to the corporate wan. It's also unlikely we'll bother with v6
there for some time as 25K users behind a few NAT firewalls is fine.

brandon