Re: misunderstanding scale

[Nick Hilliard <nick () foobar org>]

On 22/03/2014 18:50, Tore Anderson wrote:
> * Nick Hilliard
> > the level of pain
> > associated with continued deployment of ipv4-only services is still nowhere
> > near the point that ipv6 can be considered a viable alternative.
>
> This depends on who you're asking; as a blanket statement it's
> demonstrably false: For the likes of T-Mobile USA¹ and Facebook², or
> even myself³, IPv6-only isn't just an «alternative». It's «happening».

FB, T-mobile and you are all using ipv6->ipv4 protocol translators because
ipv6-only services are not a viable alternative at the moment.

The advantage that using ipv6 gives in these deployment scenarios is that
it scales beyond the amount of address space available from rfc1918.  As a
side effect, it also makes native end-to-end ipv6 connectivity pleasant.

Sadly, ipv4 address availability continues to be necessary at the same run
rate as before, except in situations where CGN is a possibility.

Nick


> [1]
> http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/TMobile-Goes-IPv6-Only-on-Android-44-Devices-126506
> [2]
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/doazzo5ygu3idna/WorldIPv6Congress-IPv6_LH%20v2.pdf
> [3] http://www.ipspace.net/IPv6-Only_Data_Centers
>
> Tore