jcurran at istaff.org
Thu May 31 02:07:21 UTC 2007
At 6:28 PM -0700 5/30/07, Randy Bush wrote:
>well, you get two points for copping to it. i lay on the train tracks
>and was squashed.
Well, I became a contentious objector... (RFC1669). One can
confirm a real sense of humor to the cosmos, because I now
get to be lead advocate for the very scenario I noted back then
really might not be viable... :-)
>i like 40 more bits as well as the next geek. but how the hell do we
>get from here to there? either we sort out how a v6-only site gets to
>the internet, there is still ipv4 space at every site and all that
>implies, or the users are screwed.
We aggressively work on getting "little" Internet content sites
(aka the 'servers' of new Internet endsites) reachable via IPv6,
whether by native IPv6 to endsite, tunnel to endsite, or tunnel
transition mechanism within the ISP.
ISPs need to take the lead on this for now new sites, by actively
promoting IPv6 with IPv4 connections. Doing that, plus the
significant effort of IPv6 backbone work is serious work.
Big content providers have to figure out how to do native IPv6
(or fake it really well) before the first IPv6-only user arrives...
Their readiness has to be 100% on that day (or the day they
can't themselves obtain additional IPv4 space), but it's fairly
academic until that point.
More information about the NANOG