Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

["Dobbins, Roland" <rdobbins () arbor net>]

On Nov 26, 2012, at 8:33 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:

> Why is that a significant question?

It is significant because it provides some rough measure of the relative *importance* of IPv6 connectivity to the users 
and to the content/app/services networks.

We are not yet at the point where ordinary people need end-to-end IPv6 connectivity across the public Internet in order 
to do their jobs.

We are not even at the point where ordinary people need end-to-end IPv6 connectivity across the public Internet for 
recreational purposes.

Providing IPv6 capabilities for popular content/apps/services like Google, Netflix, and Facebook is one thing.  
Creating compelling content/apps/services which are *only* accessible via IPv6 is another.

I believe gaming developers are probably in the best position to provide such a stimulus, should they determine that it 
makes economic sense for them to do so.

> If they have IPv6, they will access a significant amount of content via IPv6. 

The definition of 'have IPv6' is somewhat nebulous, at present - that's part of the problem.

> I don't get why people are arguing that we shouldn't do IPv6 because IPv6 is so little of total traffic.

I'm not making that argument.

> There is so little traffic because ISPs do not turn on IPv6. The content is there now.

As Randy noted, some big destination networks have in fact enabled IPv6 connectivity to their properties.  A lot 
haven't, however, and user application  capabilities/behaviors also come into play.

Again, where're the compelling IPv6-only content/apps/services?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roland Dobbins <rdobbins () arbor net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>

          Luck is the residue of opportunity and design.

                       -- John Milton