legacy /8

Sat Apr 3 21:49:57 UTC 2010

They are not glowing because applications are simply not moving to IPv6.
Google has two popular applications on IPv6, Netflix is on it way there but
what are other application companies doing about it? A popular application
like e-mail is so far behind [ref:
http://eng.genius.com/blog/2009/09/14/email-on-ipv6/] and I still encounter
registrar's providing DNS service not supporting Quad A's.

I feel talking to network operators is preaching to the choir, the challenge
is helping content providers think about moving to IPv6.

<Sarcasm>I think we will only see success once we are able to successfully
work with content providers but they are quite busy now building real
technology like the "Cloud" </Sarcasm>

Zaid

On 4/3/10 2:22 PM, "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk at iname.com> wrote:

> If "every significant router on the market" supported IPv6 five years ago,
> why aren't transit links glowing with IPv6 connectivity?  If it's not the
> hardware, than I'm guessing it's something else, like people or processes?
> 
> Frank
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Dillon [mailto:wavetossed at googlemail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 1:07 PM
> To: Larry Sheldon
> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: Re: legacy /8
> 
>> Not often you hear something that has changed just about every aspect of
>> life and enabled things that could not be imagined at its outset  called
>> a failure
> 
> Sounds like you are describing the Roman Empire. It failed and that's why
> we now have an EU in its place.
> 
> Things change. Time to move on.
> 
> IPv4 has run out of addresses and we are nowhere near finished GROWING
> THE NETWORK. IPv6 was created to solve just this problem, and 10 years
> ago folks started deploying it in order to be ready. By 5 years ago, every
> significant router on the market supported IPv6. Now that we actually need
> IPv6 in order to continue network growth, most ISPs are in the fortunate
> position that their network hardware already supports it well enough, so
> the investment required is minimized.
> 
> --Michael Dillon
> 
> 