On Monday, June 1, 2015, Tony Hain <alh-i...@tndh.net> wrote: > Hugo Slabbert wrote: > >>> snip > > > > On this given point, though: Facebook -ne generic hosting platform > > True, but it does represent a business decision to choose IPv6. The > relevant > point here is that the "NEXT" facebook/twitter/snapchat/... is likely being > pushed by clueless investors into outsourcing their infrastructure to > AWS/Azure/Google-cloud. This will prevent them from making the same > business > decision about system efficiency and long term growth that Facebook made > due > to decisions made by the cloud service operator. > > This is the exact case for www.duckduckgo.com. They were ipv6, moved to aws, and lost support , no aaaa today
To be honest, $dayjob may be next to lose ipv6 if / when www goes to the cloud > From my perspective, most of this conversation has centered on the needs of > the service, and tried very hard to ignore the needs of the customer > despite > Owen and others repeatedly raising the point. While the needs of the > service > do impact the cost of delivery, a broken service is still broken. > Personally > I would consider "free" to be overpriced for a broken service, but maybe > that is just me. > > In any case, if the VM interface doesn't present what looks like a native > IPv6 service to the application developer, IPv6 usage will be curtailed and > IPv4 growing pains will continue to get worse. > > Tony > >