Re: Carrier Grade NAT

["Fred Baker (fred)" <fred () cisco com>]

On Jul 30, 2014, at 8:45 AM, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:

> I will say that if amazon would get off the dime and support IPv6, it would make a significant difference. 

Someone that works for Amazon once told me that they are primed for it now; the question is whether their customers 
tick the box appropriately.

Per Microsoft public statements, they are now moving address space allocated them in Brazil to the US to fill a major 
service shortfall in Azure. They’re not the only kids on the block with that problem, but are perhaps the one most 
publicly reported. To my way of thinking, having services like that adopt IPv6 and tell their customers that they need 
to access the service using IPv6 would go a lot farther than residential service in pushing enterprise adoption.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-anderson-siit-dc gives a fairly clever way to make it possible for the service itself 
to be IPv6-only and yet provide IPv4 access, and preserve IPv4 addresses in the process. If I’m not mistaken, it’s 
pretty much what Facebook and others like them have implemented, with a view to being internally IPv6-only within a 
relatively short timeframe.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail