Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

Mon Nov 26 13:33:43 UTC 2012

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Dobbins, Roland wrote:

> I understand this.  However, the way that IPv6 migration is discussed in 
> most contexts seems to be predicated upon the notion that there is some 
> industry imperative to light up network with IPv6.  My point is that 
> there is not.

We'll all be better off if we all move to IPv6 and don't go the 
NAT44(44....) road longer than necessary. We can decide we want to wait 
for everybody else, which means we won't all be better off, ever.

> I disagree somewhat with this view.  The significant question is whether 
> the users are actually accessing apps/services/content via IPv6, or if 
> it's essentially white noise.

Why is that a significant question?

If they have IPv6, they will access a significant amount of content via 
IPv6. If they don't, then it's nothing.

I don't get why people are arguing that we shouldn't do IPv6 because IPv6 
is so little of total traffic. There is so little traffic because ISPs do 
not turn on IPv6. The content is there now.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike at swm.pp.se