Re: Yahoo and IPv6

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch () muada com>]

On 14 mei 2011, at 18:47, Paul Vixie wrote:

> folks who want
> to run V6 only and still be "on the internet" will need proxies for  
> a long
> while.  folks who want to run V6 only *today* and not have any  
> proxies *today*
> are sort of on their own -- the industry will not cater to market  
> non-forces.

And clearly that situation can be kept that way for a long time by  
simply not serving them anything over IPv6.

But is that wat we want?

Currently IPv4 is pretty good but that's not going to last once 1.5  
NATs on average between any two points grows to 3.8 of them, with 1.7  
starved for address/port combinations*. At that point you can  
technically still be 100% connected using just IPv4, but it won't be  
much fun anymore.

* numbers pulled out of the air by yours truly, but based on two  
consumers with home NAT today and with additional carrier NAT in the  
future.

I've been on IPv6 for a long time. When I started with IPv6, the only  
applications (to use the term loosely) that understood v6 were ping6  
and traceroute6. These days, I think the only thing I wouldn't be able  
to do over IPv6 is print. It used to be that IPv6 pingtimes were 2 - 3  
times worse than IPv4 pingtimes. They're pretty much the same 80% of  
the time now. I used to have 8 IPv4 addresses, enough for most of my  
computers. I have one now, with mandatory NAT. When I move later this  
year I may very well only have a partial IPv4 address.

The times are a-changing.