Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day

Wed Jun 8 13:09:07 UTC 2011

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 8, 2011, at 5:47 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jun 7, 2011, at 9:59 PM, Martin Millnert wrote:
>>>
>>>> Owen,
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> 2 has little bearing on need of LSN to access v4.  Insufficient amount
>>>> of IPv4 addresses => LSN required.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Martin
>>>
>>> No, if you have the option of deploying the customers on IPv6, you don't
>>> need LSN.
>>>
>>> The problem is that until the vast majority of content is dual-stack, you can't
>>> deploy customers on IPv6 without IPv4.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> cough cough NAT64/DNS64 ...
>
> Doesn't solve the problem unless your users are all on cell-phone browsers
> that don't do a lot of the things most users do with real internet connections.
>

Most of my users are on cell phone browsers :)

Furthermore, i can choose which ones get ipv4-only NAT44 and which get
ipv6-only + NAT64

Now, only if there was major cell phone OEM support ....

Also, i would like to extend the idea that as IPv6 becomes dominant in
the next few years (pending access networks), the need for IPv4 access
will wane and LSN for the IPv4 will become more acceptable as IPv4 is
just the long tail.

Cameron