On Sunday, July 5, 2015, Jared Mauch <ja...@puck.nether.net> wrote: > > > On Jul 5, 2015, at 11:35 AM, Mel Beckman <m...@beckman.org <javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > > I guess the WISPs I advise get better advice :) > > I think this is a key item for people to have in mind. We can all follow > poor advice and add in new layers of NATs, possibly including certain > applications within the NAT cone, or we can deliver DS, or DS-like service > via several technologies. > > There are a lot of devices that can do NAT from roll your own Linux or > pfSense style up to commercial solutions that vendors will sell you. (I > recall cisco pitching the ASR1K for this years ago). You could even use > something like LISP to do these redundancy things within your network. > > I would treat NAT the same way people treat CDNs which is find the large > destinations and encourage people to use IPv6 for those. > > Looking at the “top sites” here: http://www.alexa.com/topsites > > Almost all of them are IPv6 enabled. You can even poke at sites with > external tools like this: > > http://ipv6-test.com/validate.php > > Frank Bulk also monitors most of the major carrier sites for their IPv6 > reliability and stability. He often gets me to contact our IT department > to address the issues they have coping with the traffic volumes involved on > the IPv6 side for the www.us.ntt.net and www.ntt.net sites. (and yes > frank, I got your email and texts yesterday :) ) > > I would say there is no one right/wrong way to do this, but getting the > core of your network IPv6 enabled first then pushing to your edges is a > must-do item for the upcoming quarter or two. > > I was once advised on technical issues where I explained in perfect > technical detail the problems and solution path, but the management started > talking about the optics of the issue. Take advantage of the NBC, etc > coverage to ensure these priorities are taken care of. This may feel like > stooping low to some people, but it’s important to get any IPv6 items off > your todo list. There is a great ipv6-ops list as well out there where > detailed questions can be asked and answered amongst those that are doing > similar things. > > While I dislike what T-Mobile USA has done from a technical side, their > success shows that the IPv6 only edge *is* possible. This means we can > take away the idea that we *must* have IPv4 for a device to be > reachable/considered “online”. > > I anxiously await the results of the apple/IPv6/iOS9 changeover and the > increased traffic that will occur as a result. I think 2016 will drive the > traffic levels to many multiples where they are now and much closer to > parity on the global backbones. > > - Jared
I like the sentiment of what Apple has done. It is a move in the right direction. I don't think apple's move will materially change traffic levels. IPv6 traffic levels will move when when iPhones can be deployed as ipv6-only with parity to ipv4-only. Time will tell. But, it is also telling that android and windows phone are live in the hands of ipv6-only customers and there is no plan for that with Apple. CB