Carrier Grade NAT

Wed Jul 30 18:41:46 UTC 2014

On Jul 30, 2014, at 8:45 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

> I will say that if amazon would get off the dime and support IPv6, it would make a significant difference. 

Someone that works for Amazon once told me that they are primed for it now; the question is whether their customers tick the box appropriately.

Per Microsoft public statements, they are now moving address space allocated them in Brazil to the US to fill a major service shortfall in Azure. They’re not the only kids on the block with that problem, but are perhaps the one most publicly reported. To my way of thinking, having services like that adopt IPv6 and tell their customers that they need to access the service using IPv6 would go a lot farther than residential service in pushing enterprise adoption.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-anderson-siit-dc gives a fairly clever way to make it possible for the service itself to be IPv6-only and yet provide IPv4 access, and preserve IPv4 addresses in the process. If I’m not mistaken, it’s pretty much what Facebook and others like them have implemented, with a view to being internally IPv6-only within a relatively short timeframe.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140730/a0860e6c/attachment.sig>