Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Wed Jun 8 08:30:55 CDT 2011


On Jun 8, 2011, at 6:09 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On Jun 8, 2011, at 5:47 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>> 
>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Jun 7, 2011, at 9:59 PM, Martin Millnert wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Owen,
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2 has little bearing on need of LSN to access v4.  Insufficient amount
>>>>> of IPv4 addresses => LSN required.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Martin
>>>> 
>>>> No, if you have the option of deploying the customers on IPv6, you don't
>>>> need LSN.
>>>> 
>>>> The problem is that until the vast majority of content is dual-stack, you can't
>>>> deploy customers on IPv6 without IPv4.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> cough cough NAT64/DNS64 ...
>> 
>> Doesn't solve the problem unless your users are all on cell-phone browsers
>> that don't do a lot of the things most users do with real internet connections.
>> 
> 
> Most of my users are on cell phone browsers :)
> 
> Furthermore, i can choose which ones get ipv4-only NAT44 and which get
> ipv6-only + NAT64
> 
> Now, only if there was major cell phone OEM support ....
> 
> 
> Also, i would like to extend the idea that as IPv6 becomes dominant in
> the next few years (pending access networks), the need for IPv4 access
> will wane and LSN for the IPv4 will become more acceptable as IPv4 is
> just the long tail.
> 

Agreed... However, where I differ is that I believe it is content and services
which will drive the ability for IPv4 to be considered long tail. If all of the
content and services were IPv6-capable today, the need for LSN would
be very near zero (limited to the consumer devices that need to be
upgraded/replaced to understand IPv6.)

However, as it stands currently, a consumer would not consider an IPv6
connection with NAT64 or other LSN to be equivalent to what they expect
today (unless they're on a cell-phone where they already expect the
internet experience to be completely degraded).


Owen





More information about the NANOG mailing list