nick at foobar.org
Sat Mar 22 21:05:35 UTC 2014
On 22/03/2014 18:50, Tore Anderson wrote:
> * Nick Hilliard
>> the level of pain
>> associated with continued deployment of ipv4-only services is still nowhere
>> near the point that ipv6 can be considered a viable alternative.
> This depends on who you're asking; as a blanket statement it's
> demonstrably false: For the likes of T-Mobile USA¹ and Facebook², or
> even myself³, IPv6-only isn't just an «alternative». It's «happening».
FB, T-mobile and you are all using ipv6->ipv4 protocol translators because
ipv6-only services are not a viable alternative at the moment.
The advantage that using ipv6 gives in these deployment scenarios is that
it scales beyond the amount of address space available from rfc1918. As a
side effect, it also makes native end-to-end ipv6 connectivity pleasant.
Sadly, ipv4 address availability continues to be necessary at the same run
rate as before, except in situations where CGN is a possibility.
>  http://www.ipspace.net/IPv6-Only_Data_Centers
More information about the NANOG