NANOG 40 agenda posted
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Sun May 27 17:10:34 UTC 2007
I need to insist on this: I agree that having the content providers
dual-stack is nice to have, of course, and I will applaud it if happens in
Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, etc.. BUT it is NOT an immediate need.
We should not deploy IPv6-only networks at the LANs. We may have IPv6 only
at core infrastructures when the traffic on that network becomes IPv6
predominant (I've been in several of those cases with customer networks),
but make sure to keep using dual-stack in the LANs (even with NAT and
private IPv4) if you want to make sure that no translation is needed and we
have a trouble-free transition.
There are many things in Vista, and hopefully more to come, which prefer
IPv6 for peer-to-peer. And even if the ISPs don't offer IPv6 at all, hosts
use 6to4 or Teredo to automatically provide the required IPv6 connectivity.
This IPv6 peer to peer traffic is growing and that will impact networks
sooner or later. I've already worked a bit on this topic and still working
on a paper, in order to show how important is to deploy 6to4 and Teredo
relays to improve IPv6 customers experience. I've presented at the last
EOF/RIPE meeting about this "The cost of NOT deploying IPv6".
> De: Manolo Hernandez <mhernand1 at comcast.net>
> Responder a: <owner-nanog at merit.edu>
> Fecha: Sun, 27 May 2007 12:48:23 -0400
> Para: <nanog at nanog.org>
> Asunto: Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted
> william(at)elan.net wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 May 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
>>>> So, I think I can sum up your reply by saying that your suggestion is
>>>> to provide a lesser service than we do now (v4 NAT, proxies, etc.
>>>> sound to me like lesser service), during the transition period.
>>> I think you also missed the suggestion that sending out CPE with DD-wrt
>>> was a 'good idea'. Honestly DD-wrt/open-wrt are nice solutions for
>>> or for people willing to fiddle, they are not a good solution for
>> My parents and brother both have linksys with dd-wrt that I put up.
>> I don't maintain it at all and it "just works". No, they are not using
>> v6, but if it was available I don't anticipate any problems as their
>> system os at home all support it now.
> I am usually just lurk around here but I had to say something. Working
> for a service provider that has tried to make an entire product around
> IPV6 it does not work. Since none of the big players (google, yahoo,
> etc...) have started to atleast provide some IPV6 content the little
> guys are not going to jump on the bandwagon.
> Yes it's the chicken or the egg thing but its economics not logic that
> will get people to move to IPV6.
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
More information about the NANOG