On Jun 7, 2011, at 10:42 PM, Christopher Palmer wrote: > The title of this ongoing thread is giving me heart palpitations. > > Content access over IPv6 may help "justify" ISPs investing in IPv6, but it in > no means is a prerequisite technically. > > LSNs are "fine" when deployed in parallel with IPv6 IMHO. There has to be a > pathway to "good" networking. >
How many of them are you planning on maintaining? May I quote you on this after you've been doing so for a year and received 2 or three lovely FISA subpoenas for your LSN logs? > To Lorenzo's point - I really think the next big hurdle in the transition is > getting access numbers to something respectable. World IPv6 Day has only be > going for a few hours, but things seem to be going fine, and it's our hope > (currently) to keep www.xbox.com available over IPv6 indefinitely. I expect > other participants will keep IPv6 enabled for some or all of their respective > portfolios. > I agree with Lorenzo to a point, but... Access will happen in due time by virtue of IPv4 runout. If content is available dual-stack ahead of that, it dramatically reduces the need for (and load on) LSN. If it is not, then, LSN is going to be a much much uglier situation to an extent that it might even have a catch-22 effect on IPv6 deployment in the eyeball networks. > This leads me to worry that in 6-18 months we'll be in a position where a lot > of major content has permanently transitioned, and we're still at <1% access > range. That will be awkward. > Not really. > I'm not an ISP - but I absolutely expect that IPv6 roll-outs have long > time-horizons and are fairly complex. So I hope folks are looking at IPv6 > NOW, and not simply waiting for Google/Bing/Yahoo/Interwebz to enable > permanent content access and organizational justification. > I don't think any of them are really waiting for that. However, I do think getting to that point is actually more critical at this juncture than getting the eyeball networks fully deployed. Owen > christopher.pal...@microsoft.com > IPv6 @ Microsoft > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 8:48 PM > To: Lorenzo Colitti > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day > > > On Jun 7, 2011, at 7:01 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > >> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: >> Moving them to IPv6 and hoping that enough of the content providers >> move forward fast enough to minimize the extent of the LSN deployment >> required. >> >> The problem here is not content, it's access. Look at World IPv6 day. >> What percentage of web content is represented? Probably order of 10%. >> How about access? Our public stats still say 0.3% > > LSN won't be required by failure of access providers to migrate. > > LSN will be required by failure of content providers to turn on AAAA. > > LSN is required when access providers come across the following two > combined constraints: > > 1. No more IPv4 addresses to give to customers. > 2. No ability to deploy those customers on IPv6. > > For all but the most inept of access providers, they will have some ability > to put customers on IPv6 prior to the day they would have to deploy LSN. > > Owen >
