"It's the end of the world as we know it" -- REM

Thu Apr 25 00:34:36 UTC 2013

On Apr 24, 2013, at 4:50 PM, Michael Thomas <mike at mtcc.com>
 wrote:

> On 04/24/2013 03:26 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
>> 
>> Frankly, the ISPs likely to be tracking this list aren't the people holding back there. To pick on one that is fairly public, Verizon Wireline is running dual stack for at least its FIOS customers, and also deploying CGN, and being pretty up front about the impacts of CGN. Verizon Wireless, if I understand the statistics available, is estimated to have about 1/4 of its client handsets accessing Google/Yahoo/Facebook using IPv6.
> 
> Fred, isn't the larger problem those enterprise's outward facing web presence,
> etc? As great as it is that vzw is deploying on handsets, don't they also need
> to dual-stack and by inference cgn (eventually) so that their customers can get
> at the long tail of non-v6 sites?

Kind of my point. I hear a lot of complaining of the form "I don't need to deploy IPv6 because there is relatively little traffic out there." Well, surprise surprise. That's a little like me saying that I don't need to learn Chinese because nobody speaks to me in Chinese. There are a lot of Chinese speakers; they don't speak to me in Chinese, which they often prefer to speak among themselves, because I wouldn't have a clue what they were saying.

The Verizon Wireless numbers, and a list of others on the same page, tell me that if offered a AAAA record, networks and the equipment that use them will in fact use IPv6. What is in the way is the residential gateway, which is often IPv4-only, and the enterprise web and email service, which is often IPv4 only. You want to fix that, fix the residential gateway, the enterprise load balancer, and the connectivity between them and their respective upstreams.