>We'll see wide area nat before we see native IPv6 in the majority of our homes.
>IPv4 isn't going away just yet. Sorry, but IMHO, this will a major part of the problem. I have v6 already at my residence (native v6, no tunneling). I realize v4 will stay dual-stacked for maybe 4 or 5 years, but any more than that, it's simply because a few major players are dragging their feet. The folks that think v4 NAT on top of more v4 NAT (LSN, CGN, whatever you want to call it) will eventually make all this v6 stuff go away, you're completely mistaken. All that will do is complicate networks to the point it costs more to run v4 than to just deploy v6 and get it over with. Believe me, the bean counters will see the difference. There's already large scale v6 roll outs happening in many large ISP's that I know of personally here in the US. There's already Comcast home v6 trials happening now. Again, i'm not saying v4 will go away anytime soon, but for the folks that take the ostrich affect ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrich_effect) , it's going to end up costing you more to deploy v6 in a rush then to do it leisurely starting nowish. They can run side by side without any issues, so I don't see what all the uproar is about. Yes it's eventually it's going to be a switch from v4 to v6, but it's not like we can't have them both at the same time for as long as one needs. I'm willing to bet as soon as sites like Facebook, Twitter, Google, Akamai, Limelight, etc .... once those guys go v6, the rest of the network world will follow suit. And that's not to mention Tier 1's which most have already deployed it in alot of markets (if you have a business account and peer with someone big, ask/push them for v6). Here's a list of big providers already offering v6. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_IPv6_support_by_major_transit_providers ) Right now, RIR's aren't charging anything additional to obtain a block if you already have an ARIN allocation anyways. I'm sure other RIR's have similar policies. Once RIR's run out, (which i'll be surprised if any v4 blocks are left by next spring/summer), then the ship goes one way or another. You either start to adopt v6 (which will already be too late for alot that have big environments), or just keep paying for the rising costs to maintain v4 (more NAT and more NAT). The latter will option will have you ship visiting Davy Jones. my overpriced $0.02 m On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Steven Crothers <steven.croth...@gmail.com > wrote: > We'll see wide area nat before we see native IPv6 in the majority of our > homes. > > IPv4 isn't going away just yet. > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 1:29 AM, Christoffer Pedersen <v...@vrod.dk> > wrote: > > Well right now i don't think that IPv6 is urgent for gameservers. All > IPv4 blocks has been taken but a still very low amount of users are using > IPv6. The global amount of internet traffic contains absolutely almost no > IPv6 (1%>) so there's still a long trip to go. > > > > Most ISP or almost every ISP has not prepared their network for IPv6. In > Denmark for example not even TDC which is the biggest danish ISP has fully > prepared it's network for IPv6. Altough, small ISP's like Zen Systems (the > one i use for my servers) is prepared for IPv6 and will put this into > production for customers at summer. Im in a close dialog with them as my > local network on the DIX (a danish datacenter) is prepared for IPv6, i would > just need to reconfigure my firewall with it.. I guess.. > > > > I believe that this is a huge project for every ISP, it costs a lot to > have people reconfiguring all the equipment, and even buy new equipment as > some of the old equipment might even have to be changed because it doesn't > support IPv6. You can understand that it's easier to Zen Systems to convert > their "50.000 user"-network compared to TDC which has a "3 million > user"-network or more. I had to move my servers from TDC as my location did > not get to support IPv6. This just tells how old equipment that some ISP's > may have. > > > > Well enough off-topic, my conclusion is that Valve may be working on it, > but they won't announce anything before that IPv6 becomes an urgency. > > > > /Chris > > > > Sent from my iPhone 4 > > > > Den 26/04/2011 kl. 23.18 skrev Max Pierson <nmaxpier...@gmail.com>: > > > >> Well Put Chris. As you stated, it is possible, but going down that road > is a > >> nightmare if you ever have to troubleshoot. Native and dual-stacked is > where > >> we'll be for a few years until everyone has made the transition. Doesn't > >> look like we're gonna get any info however about any plans for > deployment :( > >> Guess i'll have to just wait for the announcement. Hopefully they'll do > a > >> beta so some of the community can test drive it. > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 2:52 AM, Chris Boot <bo...@bootc.net> wrote: > >> > >>> Chris, > >>> > >>> In many circles, mentioning NAT in the same sentence as IPv6 is > tantamount > >>> to heresy. Yes, NAT64 and NAT46 are possible, I can't see why you'd > consider > >>> something like that in relation to a game server. NAT66 is not > permitted by > >>> the standards and I hope nobody ever implements it. > >>> > >>> The whole point of IPv6 is to have more than enough addresses to give > each > >>> device, or server in your case, its own IP address. You could even give > each > >>> instance of your game servers its own IPv6 and run them all on the > standard > >>> port. Generally the guidelines for allocation suggest a /48 per > end-user, to > >>> be subdivided into up to 65536 subnets of 2^64 addresses. With so many > >>> addresses available virtual hosting becomes unnecessary and each site > can > >>> have its own IP. This is not a waste and is by design. > >>> > >>> I assume you suggested NAT64 as a means to IPv6-enable a service that > >>> doesn't natively support IPv6. While this is possible, to me it doesn't > make > >>> sense on a game server as the client doesn't do IPv6 either, so you'd > need a > >>> NAT46 on the client side as well. What's the point if they can talk > IPv4 > >>> with each other? > >>> > >>> Chris > >>> > >>> > >>> On 25/04/2011 22:47, Christoffer Pedersen wrote: > >>> > >>>> Im thinking of NAT here.. Would it be possible to run srcds on ipv6 if > you > >>>> had a NAT device which would in fact "transform" the ipv4 packets to > ipv6? > >>>> Im having about 4 physical mchines in a colo center, that runs a lot > of > >>>> gameservers behind my firewall. Wouldn't my change to ipv6 only be to > put on > >>>> an address on the outside NAT interface? > >>>> > >>>> /Chris > >>>> > >>>> Sent from my iPhone 4 > >>>> > >>>> Den 25/04/2011 kl. 22.21 skrev Max Pierson<nmaxpier...@gmail.com>: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Saint, > >>>>> > >>>>> I agree, there's hardly any demand from the user market at the moment > >>>>> even > >>>>> here in the states. However, I think we're all aware that sometimes > big > >>>>> companies drag their feet on things like this, but I do have to > applaud > >>>>> Valve/Steam for getting OSX running natively. Sounds like they at > least > >>>>> listen to the community somewhat. So hopefully we'll at least see > some > >>>>> announcement soon about it. Kinda hoping they would have a beta out > by > >>>>> then > >>>>> so folks that run clusters can test v6 on IPV6 day in June, but I > guess > >>>>> we'll have to wait and see unless someone from Valve is watching and > >>>>> would > >>>>> be kind enough to share some info with the community :> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> m > >>>>> > >>>>> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 11:06 PM, Saint K.<sai...@specialattack.net> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> We're also IPv6 native, although the IPv6 penetration for end users > in > >>>>>> Europe is nowhere yet so I don't really see the point yet on having > IPv6 > >>>>>> enabled for the gameservers. It is however interesting to know what > >>>>>> VALVe's > >>>>>> views are on implementing IPv6 support in steam. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Saint K. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>> From: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto: > >>>>>> hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Max Pierson > >>>>>> Sent: 24 April 2011 20:00 > >>>>>> To: hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com > >>>>>> Subject: [hlds_linux] IPv6 - Bumped > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi *, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> As I just joined the list, this is my first post, so don't shun me > just > >>>>>> yet > >>>>>> :) I saw an earlier thread (in Jan) in the archives about mention > >>>>>> that > >>>>>> some folks were looking for any timeline or any info on HLDS that > can > >>>>>> speak > >>>>>> v6. It didn't look like it went very far, so i'm resurrecting it :) > I > >>>>>> have a > >>>>>> /48 at one of my colo facilities that we're testing at the moment. > (No > >>>>>> tunneling, native v6 BGP feeds from leading v6 providers). It would > be > >>>>>> awesome to get a few threads of Source running v6. Anyone out there > from > >>>>>> Steam/Valve or with some insider info care to comment on any plans > for > >>>>>> HLDS > >>>>>> on v6?? Are there any plans in the works?? I have a huge testbed > solely > >>>>>> for > >>>>>> this project and am pretty excited about moving forward, but after > doing > >>>>>> some research, I can't find much on this subject at all. Anyone else > in > >>>>>> this > >>>>>> boat?? All of my servers are already speaking v6, so now I just need > the > >>>>>> binaries to comply ;) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> And if i'm missing some info, clue bats are welcome if someone has > links > >>>>>> to > >>>>>> info that I may have missed. Otherwise, this might be a perfect time > for > >>>>>> an > >>>>>> online "Get to v6 guys!!" petition. I see WoW is already there, so > >>>>>> Blizzard > >>>>>> is at least on the move. Hopefully others including our baby (for > most > >>>>>> of us > >>>>>> at least) will see that the demand is there, albeit a small minority > >>>>>> that > >>>>>> knows what 128-bits of Hex looks like and has access to it :) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sorry if this was a bit OT, but TIA, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> m > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list > archives, > >>>>>> please visit: > >>>>>> http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux > >>>>>> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list > archives, > >>>>>> please visit: > >>>>>> http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux > >>>>>> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list > archives, > >>>>> please visit: > >>>>> http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux > >>>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > >>>> please visit: > >>>> http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > >>> please visit: > >>> http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux > >>> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > >> http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux > > > > _______________________________________________ > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux > > > > > > -- > Steven Crothers > steven.croth...@gmail.com > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux > _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
