/8 end user assignment?

Sat Aug 6 18:15:43 UTC 2005

On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Andy Davidson wrote:

>
> Randy Bush wrote:
> >>Until such devices support IPv6, to reiterate Steve's point, it's not an
> >>option to consider approaching connectivity suppliers with IPv6 enquiries.
> > could you comment on christopher's observation that, given the likely
> > volume of v6 traffic, you would not have a v6 load worth balancing?
>
> My point was that the 'loadbalancers' do so much more than share load,
> and I don't want to lose this functionality.

Sure, and the things you pointed out you yourself pointed out could be
done with mod_proxy on apache, provided the load wasn't TOO high...

>
> But to answer your question, the market isn't providing us with enough -
> or rather *any* interest, and this is what matters.  If we reach the
> point where people can't buy widgets from us until we support IPv6, or
> that people would rather buy widgets from someone else because they
> support it, then we have to move.

This arguement we (mci/uunet) used/use as well: "not enough demand to do
any v6, put at bottom of list"... (until recently atleast it still flew as
an answer) How would you know if you had demand? how would you know if
people who had dualstack systems were trying to get AAAA and failing?

Seriously, I'm just curious here... this is akin to the 'if a tree fell
inn the forest would it make noise' problem.

>
> I don't know if there can be other financial incentives for us - if we
> can buy IPv6 connectivity very cheaply - which helps us squeeze those
> margins even more of course, then similarly we have to move.  Quickly.

v6 is free in most places today, sprint/verio/uu (someone else I'm
forgetting, sorry!) in the US atleast have v6 connectivity for 'free'
(provided you have a v4 link), is 'free' cheap enough? :)