On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Mark Andrews <[email protected]> wrote: > > In message <CAL9jLaaQUP1UzoKag3Kuq8a5bMcB2q6Yg=B_=1ffwxrn6k-...@mail.gmail.com >>, Christopher Morrow writes: >> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 9:02 PM, Ca By <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Monday, June 1, 2015, Mark Andrews <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> In message >> >> <CAL9jLaYXCdfViHbUPx-=rs4vsx5mfecpfue8b7vq+au2hcx...@mail.gmail.com> >> >> , Christopher Morrow writes: >> >> > So... I don't really see any of the above arguments for v6 in a vm >> >> > setup to really hold water in the short term at least. I think for >> >> > sure you'll want v6 for public services 'soon' (arguably like 10 yrs >> >> > ago so you'd get practice and operational experience and ...) but for >> >> > the rest sure it's 'nice', and 'cute', but really not required for >> >> > operations (unless you have v6 only customers) >> >> >> >> Everyone has effectively IPv6-only customers today. IPv6 native + >> >> CGN only works for services. Similarly DS-Lite and 464XLAT. >> >> ok, and for the example of 'put my service in the cloud' ... the >> service is still accessible over ipv4 right? > > It depends on what you are trying to do. Having something in the > cloud manage something at home. You can't reach the home over IPv4 > more and more these days as. IPv6 is the escape path for that but > you need both ends to be able to speak IPv6. This will happen to > business as well. The ability to be able to be able to call out > to everyone is lost if the cloud provider doesn't fully support > IPv6. >
so, I totally agree that long term v6 must also appear in the cloud-spaces... I was (long back in this thread) asking: "sure, v6 is great, what top 1-3 things could a cloud provider prioritize NOW to get the ball rolling" (presuming they have some 'real' reason why v6 'just can not be added to interface configs'). > There are a whole segment of applications that don't work, or don't > work well, or don't work without a whole lot of additional investment > when one end is behind a CGN (covers all the above as IPv4 is > supplied over a CGN). > 'additional investment' == 'client initiates connection to server' right? :) > This attitude of we don't have to invest in IPv6 yet because we > have lots of public IPv4 addresses stinks to high heaven these day, > whether you are a ISP, cloud provider or someone else. yup, agreed. I was (and am still) reacting to the 'everything is horrible and broken because I can't talk the v6's to all my internal machines' when ... that seems (to me at least) to be completely immaterial when 'there is a v6 endpoint for your http/https/xmpp/etc' available 'now'. (or could be in relatively short order). -chris
