On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Keith Moore <[email protected]>wrote:
> Why are you trying to make life harder for developers of IPv6 applications? > There's no reason at all that an application developer should have to set > up a special-purpose network just to test an IPv6 application. > No, we're trying to make their lives easier, by suggesting they use something that actually *works*. > Realistic testing of applications needs to be done on real networks, or a > least an approximation to real networks. Testing IPv6 using 6to4 over > public IPv4 obviously isn't perfect, but it's a hell of a lot more realistic > than setting up a lab network and confining one's testing to that. > So use a tunnel broker. > You're missing something. I can connect directly from my mobile laptop to > a machine in my home network using 6to4. > Really? From where? On none of the networks my laptop connects to do I get a public IPv4 address. Some of them do give me have native IPv6 or manually-tunneled IPv6 though. We can disagree about the meaning of the word "widespread", but the > practical fact is that you can't expect people to give up something that > works for them until you can provide them something that works better *for > them. "Available to 50% of Internet service customers" is equivalent to a > very small percent probability of native connectivity being able to replace > 6to4 connectivity in a scenario where 6to4 is currently working. And the > more hosts involved, the smaller that probability is. * > You cannot claim that 6to4 is "working" when there is data that shows that it has a 20% failure rate. If we had that sort of connectivity in IPv4, we wouldn't have an Internet. > Existing "content providers" are not going to drive adoption of IPv6. > They're going to follow it. > Nope. Look at World IPv6 day. If you look at the list of participaints, I'd say that probably more than 10% of Internet content, either by bits or by query volume, is ready for IPv6 now. Our data shows that access is at 0.3%. So you could say that in fact content *is* driving adoption of IPv6. We just need to get unreliable tunneled connectivity out of the way so we can turn it on for real. > Web and email will be the last applications to migrate. > Um, no. See above. > WEG> Well, it'd be more harmful if there weren't alternatives. > > > There aren't any good ones. Teredo and configured tunnels are worse in > many ways; though they each have their use cases. > Actually, configured tunnels are much better. They have a much lower failure rate and lower latency. We published data that shows the latency impact in our PAM 2009 paper. Regards, Lorenzo
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
