nanog mailing list archives
Re: Sad IPv4 story?
From: Jared Mauch <jared () puck nether net>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 04:54:07 -0500
On Dec 11, 2011, at 6:52 AM, John Curran wrote:
The sooner we get the content on IPv6 in addition to IPv4, the sooner that connecting new customers up via IPv6 without additional unique IPv4 address space becomes viable (and obviously if we had the vast majority of content already on IPv6, then connecting new customers via IPv6 would be simple indeed.)
Google and other content providers will whitelist you if you coordinate with them. Some may not like the social-political implications of this as it will create what some see as IPv6 islands that are overlays on the global IPv6 network. This is nothing new, there have always been private and policy based decisions that lead to reachability. We have seen great success (IMHO) in IPv6 day. We need to see this happen again with a broader number of networks having IPv6 connectivity. I look forward to seeing the continued broadband deployment of IPv6 to make the data far more interesting. I'm glad to see the major carriers doing IPv6 work in this space. It appears that the traditional/incumbent telcos in the US are behind the curve, but I'm not entirely convinced their business model is relevant in the future decades. - Jared
Current thread:
- Re: Sad IPv4 story?, (continued)
- Re: Sad IPv4 story? Eric Parsonage (Dec 11)
- RE: Sad IPv4 story? Vitkovsky, Adam (Dec 12)
- RE: Sad IPv4 story? Leigh Porter (Dec 12)
- Re: Sad IPv4 story? Joel jaeggli (Dec 12)
- Re: Sad IPv4 story? Roland Perry (Dec 17)
- Re: Sad IPv4 story? Mark Tinka (Dec 12)
- Re: Sad IPv4 story? Randy Bush (Dec 10)
- Re: Sad IPv4 story? Joel jaeggli (Dec 10)
- Re: Sad IPv4 story? Joel jaeggli (Dec 10)
- Re: Sad IPv4 story? Jared Mauch (Dec 13)
- Re: Sad IPv4 story? Mark Tinka (Dec 14)