Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day

[Martin Millnert <millnert () gmail com>]

Cameron,

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Cameron Byrne <cb.list6 () gmail com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 5:47 AM, Cameron Byrne <cb.list6 () gmail com> 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 ...
>
> cough DS-lite.
>
> Cameron

AF translators are in the same class of technology as LSN -- to me
they are the same (_NAT_64).

Someone who thinks you will be successful in selling an Internet with
pure ipv6 only access today to consumers must be living on a different
planet.

Cheers,
Martin