Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day

Wed Jun 8 13:05:23 UTC 2011

On Jun 8, 2011, at 5:48 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 5:47 AM, Cameron Byrne <cb.list6 at gmail.com> 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 ...
>> 
> 
> cough DS-lite.

DS-lite is a slightly less pathological form of LSN. It's still LSN, it just removes
the second NAT at the CPE.

Owen