Re: IPv6 is on the marketers radar

[Mark Andrews <marka () isc org>]

In message <000901cbcb22$3cf978a0$b6ec69e0$@org>, "Lee Howard" writes:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Geert Bosch [mailto:bosch () adacore com]
> >
> > Honestly, I can't quite see the big deal for home users. I'm using
> > an Apple Airport Extreme, and setting it up with a IPv6 tunnel from
>
> $150?  That's a high-powered device compared to most home gateways.
>
> > HE was quite straightforward. Sure, I don't expect the average user
> > to go through these steps, but they could easily be automated and
> > rolled out as part of a firmware update (which is a routine matter
>
> Yes, if the ISP provided the gateway.  In many markets, they don't.
> Even if they start now, they would have to convince every customer
> to swap routers.  And find the capital to pay for them.  And have a
> system for updating the firmware and configurations of those
> devices.  Or maybe the customer's going to have to buy a new 
> gateway, when the one they have is still functioning,  and might 
> even be brand new.
>
> > the foreseeable future, people will have (NATed or not) IPv4
> > connectivity, so content providers are fine without IPv6. 
>
> Depends on the content.  Large-scale NAT is bad for you if you
> depend on IP geo-location, or use anti-DDOS measures to limit
> number of connections or bits from a single IP address, or use
> IP address to report abuse, or blacklist IP addresses, or log the
> user's IP address, or try to enforce copyright by reporting IP
> addresses of violators, or rate-limit outbound data per address,
> or record unique visitors by IP address.
> It might also increase latency, but probably not so much that
> you'd panic.

And a lot of that depends upon how you implement LSN.
* LSN per pop or a uber mega LSN?
* How many customers per address? 2 or 200?
 
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka () isc org