Hi, Brian Candler wrote: > I'd say that giving users native V6 and NAT44 gives the content > companies *no reason whatsoever* to adopt V6, since they know all > their content is reachable via the tried-and-tested V4 path anyway.
I'm making an assumption that native v6 end to end will perform better than nat44 squashed connectivity, and that web applications will become more interactive with more moving parts, so therefore that content networks/applications will get more latency sensitive, and therefore also will consume more ports per user session. I am also making an assumption that users will prefer better performing websites to bad performing websites and will vote in some number with their feet towards better performing sites, and that native (working) v6 will be so much better than nat (broken) v4 that a difference will be observed by users. And I'm making a final assumption that this is well known by sensible content assets like Google and why they have gone and done work to dual stack their content infrastructure early. Yes, these are assumptions but is anyone going to stick a bet against them ? Other than NeilX, who is known for recreational contraryism. :-) Andy
