Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Jun 7, 2011, at 10:42 PM, Christopher Palmer wrote:

> The title of this ongoing thread is giving me heart palpitations.
>
> Content access over IPv6 may help "justify" ISPs investing in IPv6, but it in no means is a prerequisite technically.
>
> LSNs are "fine" when deployed in parallel with IPv6 IMHO. There has to be a pathway to "good" networking. 

How many of them are you planning on maintaining? May I quote you on this after you've been doing so for
a year and received 2 or three lovely FISA subpoenas for your LSN logs?

> To Lorenzo's point - I really think the next big hurdle in the transition is getting access numbers to something 
> respectable. World IPv6 Day has only be going for a few hours, but things seem to be going fine, and it's our hope 
> (currently) to keep www.xbox.com available over IPv6 indefinitely. I expect other participants will keep IPv6 enabled 
> for some or all of their respective portfolios. 

I agree with Lorenzo to a point, but...

Access will happen in due time by virtue of IPv4 runout. If content is available dual-stack ahead of that,
it dramatically reduces the need for (and load on) LSN. If it is not, then, LSN is going to be a much much
uglier situation to an extent that it might even have a catch-22 effect on IPv6 deployment in the
eyeball networks.

> This leads me to worry that in 6-18 months we'll be in a position where a lot of major content has permanently 
> transitioned, and we're still at <1% access range. That will be awkward.
Not really.

> I'm not an ISP - but I absolutely expect that IPv6 roll-outs have long time-horizons and are fairly complex. So I 
> hope folks are looking at IPv6 NOW, and not simply waiting for Google/Bing/Yahoo/Interwebz to enable permanent 
> content access and organizational justification.

I don't think any of them are really waiting for that. However, I do think getting to that point is actually more
critical at this juncture than getting the eyeball networks fully deployed.

Owen

> Christopher.Palmer () microsoft com
> IPv6 @ Microsoft
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen () delong com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 8:48 PM
> To: Lorenzo Colitti
> Cc: nanog () nanog org
> Subject: Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
>
>
> On Jun 7, 2011, at 7:01 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:
> > Moving them to IPv6 and hoping that enough of the content providers
> > move forward fast enough to minimize the extent of the LSN deployment
> > required.
> >
> > The problem here is not content, it's access. Look at World IPv6 day.
> > What percentage of web content is represented? Probably order of 10%.
> > How about access? Our public stats still say 0.3%
>
> LSN won't be required by failure of access providers to migrate.
>
> LSN will be required by failure of content providers to turn on AAAA.
>
> 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.
>
> For all but the most inept of access providers, they will have some ability
> to put customers on IPv6 prior to the day they would have to deploy LSN.
>
> Owen