Why no IPv6-only day (Was: Protocol-41 is not the only tunneling protocol)
owen at delong.com
Tue Jun 7 05:47:16 UTC 2011
On Jun 6, 2011, at 4:49 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message <B53BEF53-F327-44ED-8F23-A85042E99B3F at delong.com>, Owen DeLong write
>> On Jun 6, 2011, at 2:23 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>> In message <alpine.BSF.2.00.1106060732190.68892 at goat.gigo.com>, Jason =
>> Fesler wr
>>>>> But anyway, just consider it: a portion of the major websites go
>>>>> IPv6-only for 24 hours. What happens is that well, 99% of the =
>>>>> can't reach them anymore, as the known ones are down, they start =
>>>>> and thus overloading the helpdesks of their ISPs.
>>>> Won't happen this year or next. Too much money at stake for the web=20=
>>>> sites. Only when IPv4 is single digits or less could this be even=20
>>>> remotely considered. Even the 0.05% hit for a day was controverial =
>>> IPv4 will never reach those figures. IPv6 isn't preferenced enough =
>>> that to happen and IPv6-only sites have methods of reaching IPv4 only
>>> sites (DS-Lite, NAT64/DNS64).
>> I think you'll be surprised over time. Given the tendency of the =
>> to nearly double in size every 2 years or so, it only takes 7 cycles =
>> 15 years) for the existing network to become a single-digit percentage
>> of the future network.
> And without there being a strong IPv6 bias in the clients they will
> continue to use IPv4/IPv6 on a 50/50 basis. I would be quite happy
> to be proven wrong and only time will tell.
Almost every client does have a strong IPv6 bias if they have what
appears to be native connectivity. The bias degrades rapidly with
other forms of host connectivity.
My linux and Mac systems certainly seem to strongly prefer IPv6
from my home. YMMV.
More information about the NANOG