nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 at 50% for VZW (Re: NAT IP and Google)
From: Jared Mauch <jared () puck nether net>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 21:21:03 -0400
On May 22, 2014, at 9:14 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan () gmail com> wrote:
On Thursday, May 22, 2014, Jared Mauch <jared () puck nether net> wrote: On May 22, 2014, at 8:04 AM, Livingood, Jason <Jason_Livingood () cable comcast com> wrote:On 5/21/14, 9:38 PM, "Jared Mauch" <jared () puck nether net> wrote:On May 21, 2014, at 7:17 PM, Ca By <cb.list6 () gmail com> wrote:Verizon Wireless is at 50% ipv6 penetrationI suspect this would go up significantly if Twitter and Instagram would IPv6 enable their services. Same for pintarest.+1 We naturally focus a lot on network enablement here, but IMO it is a great time to focus on more web-based services embracing IPv6 with another June 6 just around the corner. :-)I'm waiting to see Akamai and Cachefly follow the lead of Cloudflare and make everything IPv6 by default. I remind vendors when I talk to them, "IPv6 first, then IP classic(tm)". Jared, Akamai has been v6 enabled for years. Customers have choices and know best.
I respectfully disagree with the 'know best', I've seen many customers who don't know the right choice and it takes a bit of time to learn the right way.
Isn't your network still offering both as customer choices? :-)
We still are, and I posted recently on ratio that we see, which is 286:1 https://twitter.com/jaredmauch/status/466150814663581696 With so many people already doing IPv6 on their main sites, I'm hard pressed to believe this won't break people who aren't already broken. You can't cater to everyones broken network. I can't reach 1.1.1.1 from here either, but sometimes when I travel I can, even with TTL=1. At some point folks have to fix what's broken. - Jared
Current thread:
- Re: NAT IP and Google, (continued)
- Re: NAT IP and Google Ca By (May 21)
- Re: NAT IP and Google Ca By (May 21)
- IPv6 at 50% for VZW (Re: NAT IP and Google) Jared Mauch (May 21)
- Re: IPv6 at 50% for VZW (Re: NAT IP and Google) Livingood, Jason (May 22)
- Re: IPv6 at 50% for VZW (Re: NAT IP and Google) Jared Mauch (May 22)
- Re: IPv6 at 50% for VZW (Re: NAT IP and Google) Christopher Morrow (May 22)
- Re: IPv6 at 50% for VZW (Re: NAT IP and Google) Sholes, Joshua (May 22)
- Re: IPv6 at 50% for VZW (Re: NAT IP and Google) manning (May 22)
- Re: IPv6 at 50% for VZW (Re: NAT IP and Google) Michael Brown (May 22)
- Re: IPv6 at 50% for VZW (Re: NAT IP and Google) Martin Hannigan (May 22)
- Re: IPv6 at 50% for VZW (Re: NAT IP and Google) Jared Mauch (May 22)
- Re: IPv6 at 50% for VZW (Re: NAT IP and Google) Julien Goodwin (May 22)
- Re: IPv6 at 50% for VZW (Re: NAT IP and Google) Christopher Morrow (May 22)
- Re: IPv6 at 50% for VZW (Re: NAT IP and Google) Geoff Huston (May 23)
- Re: IPv6 at 50% for VZW (Re: NAT IP and Google) Rubens Kuhl (May 22)
- Re: IPv6 at 50% for VZW (Re: NAT IP and Google) Martin Hannigan (May 22)
- Re: IPv6 at 50% for VZW (Re: NAT IP and Google) Martin Hannigan (May 22)
- Re: IPv6 at 50% for VZW (Re: NAT IP and Google) Lee Howard (May 23)
- Re: IPv6 at 50% for VZW (Re: NAT IP and Google) Lee Howard (May 22)
- Re: IPv6 at 50% for VZW (Re: NAT IP and Google) Matthew Petach (May 22)
- Re: IPv6 at 50% for VZW (Re: NAT IP and Google) Ryan Rawdon (May 28)