Hello all, I visited *http://www.worldipv6day.org/* which is an Internet Society website and clicked on *test* which took me to http://test-ipv6.com/# to do a test online for IPv6.
When *http://test-ipv6.com/#* opened for me to run a test, part of the results says: "You appear to be able to browse the IPv4 Internet only. You will not be able to reach IPv6-only sites." Please can some one visit http://test-ipv6.com/# and give me more explanation on the displayed result? Kind regards, Otunte Otueneh ISOC Nigeria Chapter On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Stefan Winter <stefan.win...@restena.lu>wrote: > Hi, > > >> ... when the support people for a fairly well-established telco > >> haven't even heard of IPv6, it's hard to believe that it's going > >> to be available anytime soon. > >> [multiple people essentially reporting the same] > >> At this point in time $ISP has no immediate plans for implementation. > > I would say it's about time reality finally settles in. > > My reality is that I switched to an ISP who openly announced native IPv6 > support in their offering in 2007. Up and running since then, and when I > had trouble setting up the IPCP+IP6CP in the same PPP channel in IOS, I > wrote them an email on a Saturday, and got a config snippet back an hour > later, as part of their standard customer service. That ISP operates > nation-wide and uses IPv6 as a marketing instrument to get techies to > subscribe. For a price of converted 15 USD per month. That's in Germany > though. Apparently, realities differ depending on where you are. > > Greetings, > > Stefan Winter > > > > >> Keith Moore wrote: > >> Meanwhile, 6to4 continues to work just fine for me. > >> So please explain again why it isn't premature to > >> discourage a valuable transition mechanism? > > On that one I agree with Keith; where's the rush? Although imperfect, > > 6to4 was an obvious path and its demise would be the failure of the > > IETF, following a long list of things that have been killed prematurely. > > > > > >> Ned wrote: > >> Anyone who doesn't believe we have a major marketing > >> problem here isn't paying attention. > > Hmm that is a point of view. You think you have a solution (IPv6) to > > what you perceive to be a problem (shortage of IPv4 addresses). > > > > However, some ISPs (and some other companies) do not consider it a > > problem, but a blessing. What the IPv4 shortage does is that it prevents > > new large players to enter the field, while allowing existing players to > > continue to do business as usual. > > > > As the shortage as been predicted for a decade, some (not all) have > > stockpiled addresses and are now reaping the benefits. In business, this > > situation is worth solid gold: it's called a monopoly. I'm fat and > > happy, and I want it to continue. In this case, it's even better: > > companies who benefit from it can argue that they are not the ones who > > created the monopoly, it was a built-in limitation of the system as > > created. > > > > Some may not like the parallel, but we have failed the IPv6 migration > > the same way we have failed the war on drugs. A while ago, there was > > this thing called the Tier-1 cartel. As originally designed, a very > > elusive club, with almost no way in and absolutely no tears when a > > member gets de-peered. > > > > Some have said that the cartel has failed as a system (due to a large > > number of multilateral peering agreements and other factors). But now > > what we have is a much larger number of largely unorganized but sharing > > the same goals entities: those who already have IPv4 addresses. It's > > even worse. > > > > When a resource becomes scare or limited, the big picture is not how > > much of it is available, or how much it costs. The big picture is how > > much of the market one does control. Now we are in the situation where > > everyone and their sister own a piece of the pie, and as long as the > > price of the pie keeps going up, they're going to cling to it. > > > > > > On top of the marketing problem you mentioned, you have a bigger one: > > there are many, many organizations out there that, even if you paid them > > to deploy IPv6, would not. Because IPv6 is a territorial threat to them. > > > > While the new or wannabe players would like the extra address space, the > > sad truth is that the already establish players don't like newly open > > spaces and prefer the territory control that comes with owning a piece > > of a limited land space. > > > > Michel. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ietf mailing list > > Ietf@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > -- > Stefan WINTER > Ingenieur de Recherche > Fondation RESTENA - Réseau Téléinformatique de l'Education Nationale et de > la Recherche > 6, rue Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi > L-1359 Luxembourg > > Tel: +352 424409 1 > Fax: +352 422473 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > >
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
