Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Wed Jun 8 02:13:25 CDT 2011


On Jun 7, 2011, at 10:42 PM, Christopher Palmer wrote:

> The title of this ongoing thread is giving me heart palpitations.
> 
> Content access over IPv6 may help "justify" ISPs investing in IPv6, but it in no means is a prerequisite technically.
> 
> LSNs are "fine" when deployed in parallel with IPv6 IMHO. There has to be a pathway to "good" networking. 
> 

How many of them are you planning on maintaining? May I quote you on this after you've been doing so for
a year and received 2 or three lovely FISA subpoenas for your LSN logs?

> To Lorenzo's point - I really think the next big hurdle in the transition is getting access numbers to something respectable. World IPv6 Day has only be going for a few hours, but things seem to be going fine, and it's our hope (currently) to keep www.xbox.com available over IPv6 indefinitely. I expect other participants will keep IPv6 enabled for some or all of their respective portfolios. 
> 

I agree with Lorenzo to a point, but...

Access will happen in due time by virtue of IPv4 runout. If content is available dual-stack ahead of that,
it dramatically reduces the need for (and load on) LSN. If it is not, then, LSN is going to be a much much
uglier situation to an extent that it might even have a catch-22 effect on IPv6 deployment in the
eyeball networks.

> This leads me to worry that in 6-18 months we'll be in a position where a lot of major content has permanently transitioned, and we're still at <1% access range. That will be awkward.
> 
Not really.

> I'm not an ISP - but I absolutely expect that IPv6 roll-outs have long time-horizons and are fairly complex. So I hope folks are looking at IPv6 NOW, and not simply waiting for Google/Bing/Yahoo/Interwebz to enable permanent content access and organizational justification.
> 

I don't think any of them are really waiting for that. However, I do think getting to that point is actually more
critical at this juncture than getting the eyeball networks fully deployed.

Owen

> Christopher.Palmer at microsoft.com
> IPv6 @ Microsoft
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 8:48 PM
> To: Lorenzo Colitti
> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
> 
> 
> On Jun 7, 2011, at 7:01 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> Moving them to IPv6 and hoping that enough of the content providers
>> move forward fast enough to minimize the extent of the LSN deployment
>> required.
>> 
>> The problem here is not content, it's access. Look at World IPv6 day.
>> What percentage of web content is represented? Probably order of 10%.
>> How about access? Our public stats still say 0.3%
> 
> LSN won't be required by failure of access providers to migrate.
> 
> LSN will be required by failure of content providers to turn on AAAA.
> 
> 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.
> 
> For all but the most inept of access providers, they will have some ability
> to put customers on IPv6 prior to the day they would have to deploy LSN.
> 
> Owen
> 





More information about the NANOG mailing list