On 07/06/11 15:28, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message<8a6a00c3-bd6d-4fb4-ae82-73816dfd9...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong write
s:
Things like happy-eyeballs diminish it even with perfect IPv6
connectivity. 100ms rtt doesn't cover the world and to make
multi-homed servers (includes dual stack) work well
In message <8a6a00c3-bd6d-4fb4-ae82-73816dfd9...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong write
s:
> >
> > Things like happy-eyeballs diminish it even with perfect IPv6
> > connectivity. 100ms rtt doesn't cover the world and to make
> > multi-homed servers (includes dual stack) work well clients will
> > make a
Thus spake Owen DeLong (o...@delong.com) on Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 05:37:00AM
-0700:
> >
> > Things like happy-eyeballs diminish it even with perfect IPv6
> > connectivity. 100ms rtt doesn't cover the world and to make
> > multi-homed servers (includes dual stack) work well clients will
> > make a
>
> Things like happy-eyeballs diminish it even with perfect IPv6
> connectivity. 100ms rtt doesn't cover the world and to make
> multi-homed servers (includes dual stack) work well clients will
> make additional connections.
Is happy eyeballs actually running code ANYWHERE?
Owen
Cisco just published a report saying that bandwidth will increase 400% by 2015,
http://isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=2182
That does mean doubling every two years as far as it goes..
j
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Jérôme Nicolle wrote:
> 2011/6/6 Owen DeLong :
>> I think you'll be surprised over time. G
In message , Owen DeLong
writes:
>
> On Jun 6, 2011, at 4:49 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> >=20
> > In message , Owen =
> DeLong write
> > s:
> >>=20
> >> On Jun 6, 2011, at 2:23 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >>=20
> >>> =3D20
> >>> In message , =
> Jason =3D
> >> Fesler wr
> >>> ites:
> > But an
On Jun 6, 2011, at 4:41 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Jun 6, 2011, at 2:23 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> ...
>>> IPv4 will never reach those figures. IPv6 isn't preferenced enough for
>>> that to happen and IPv6-only sites have methods of reach
On Jun 6, 2011, at 4:49 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message , Owen DeLong
> write
> s:
>>
>> On Jun 6, 2011, at 2:23 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>
>>> =20
>>> In message , Jason =
>> Fesler wr
>>> ites:
> But anyway, just consider it: a portion of the major websites go
> IPv6-only for
2011/6/7 Matthew Petach :
> Hm. With roughly 1B people on the internet today[0], 7 cycles of
> doubling would mean that in 15 years, we'd have 128B people
> on the internet?
>
> I strongly suspect the historical growth curve will *not* continue
> at that pace.
Well, todays Internet is made of 1B
In message , Owen DeLong write
s:
>
> On Jun 6, 2011, at 2:23 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> >=20
> > In message , Jason =
> Fesler wr
> > ites:
> >>> But anyway, just consider it: a portion of the major websites go
> >>> IPv6-only for 24 hours. What happens is that well, 99% of the =
> populace
>
2011/6/6 Owen DeLong :
> I think you'll be surprised over time. Given the tendency of the internet
> to nearly double in size every 2 years or so, it only takes 7 cycles (about
> 15 years) for the existing network to become a single-digit percentage
> of the future network.
>
> Owen
Internet' grow
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Jun 6, 2011, at 2:23 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
...
>> IPv4 will never reach those figures. IPv6 isn't preferenced enough for
>> that to happen and IPv6-only sites have methods of reaching IPv4 only
>> sites (DS-Lite, NAT64/DNS64).
>
> I think
On Jun 6, 2011, at 2:23 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message , Jason Fesler
> wr
> ites:
>>> But anyway, just consider it: a portion of the major websites go
>>> IPv6-only for 24 hours. What happens is that well, 99% of the populace
>>> can't reach them anymore, as the known ones are down, th
In message , Jason Fesler wr
ites:
> > But anyway, just consider it: a portion of the major websites go
> > IPv6-only for 24 hours. What happens is that well, 99% of the populace
> > can't reach them anymore, as the known ones are down, they start calling
> > and thus overloading the helpdesks of
But anyway, just consider it: a portion of the major websites go
IPv6-only for 24 hours. What happens is that well, 99% of the populace
can't reach them anymore, as the known ones are down, they start calling
and thus overloading the helpdesks of their ISPs.
Won't happen this year or next. Too
On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 10:58:05 -0500
Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Brandon Butterworth
> wrote:
> [snip]
> > This W6D is about turning v6 on. At some point, many years from now,
> > when everyone has got bored of supporting legacy v4 for a hand full
> > of legacy users there m
On Jun 4, 2011, at 10:05 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 10:58:05 CDT, Jimmy Hess said:
>
>> Or maybe at some point a year or so from now... display a warning to all
>> users
>> accessing the site over IPv4; reminding them of the need to upgrade
>> their internet conn
On Jun 4, 2011, at 1:17 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> On 2011-Jun-03 18:20, Owen DeLong wrote:
> [..]
>> FIrst I've heard of such a thing.
>
> There is a first time for everything ;)
>
>> The original organizers of W6D have zero
>> motivation to try such a thing and I can't imagine why they would
On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 10:58:05 CDT, Jimmy Hess said:
> Or maybe at some point a year or so from now... display a warning to all
> users
> accessing the site over IPv4; reminding them of the need to upgrade
> their internet connection to IPv6 in order to be able to access new 'premium'
> content
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Brandon Butterworth
wrote:
[snip]
> This W6D is about turning v6 on. At some point, many years from now,
> when everyone has got bored of supporting legacy v4 for a hand full of
> legacy users there might be a v6 only day where we turn v4 off to test
> if it can be
> > The original organizers of W6D have zero
> > motivation to try such a thing and I can't imagine why they would even
> > consider it for more than a picosecond.
This W6D is about turning v6 on. At some point, many years from now,
when everyone has got bored of supporting legacy v4 for a hand fu
On 2011-Jun-03 18:20, Owen DeLong wrote:
[..]
> FIrst I've heard of such a thing.
There is a first time for everything ;)
> The original organizers of W6D have zero
> motivation to try such a thing and I can't imagine why they would even
> consider it for more than a picosecond.
As you where not
22 matches
Mail list logo
