On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 7:35 AM, Hui Deng <[email protected]> wrote: > we have multiple reasons to do this, > there are lots of operator are planning to do IPv6 only, most of > people already see that. > > one key point, we are doing IPv6, not IPv4, > you are proposing that let's support IPv4, and assign them unlimited > IPv4 address. > finally nobody use IPv6.
This is a backwards looking statement not inline with the direction major content providers like Google, Netflix, Limelight and others. Yes, IPv6 content is limited today, but it is growing. It must growh. The only way to restore the end-to-end principle is to push native IPv6, which will invariably be a better service than any LSN or tunneling technique for users, operators, and content alike. As a key contributor at a very large network, you and your colleagues have a very powerful position in in accelerating IPv6 adoption. As pointed out in this NANOG deck, content has consolidated. That said, it only takes a few major players on the content side to make a dramatic difference http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog47/abstracts.php?pt=MTQ1MyZuYW5vZzQ3&nm=nanog47 And Google, the largest content player, has dramatically increased the available IPv6 content. http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/ Cameron Byrne T-Mobile USA > > Thanks > > -Hui > > > 2009/12/2 Sri Gundavelli <[email protected]>: >> I agree. When there is a case of v4 legacy app unable to use IPv6 transport >> for what ever reasons, its rather better to go enable IPv4 on the peer, >> still supporting IPv6-only network over dual-stack lite network. Or, modify >> the app to use IPv6 transport and avoid the huge cost and management of >> dealing with a modified stack and on all OS variants. We are mainly mixing a >> true legacy requirement with new requirements which are debatable. >> >> >> Sri >> >> >> On 12/1/09 9:04 AM, "Durand, Alain" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Why go through all that trouble when you could make the server app >> dual-stack capable in the first place? >> That could be done with or without assigning a unique v4 address to it, >> simply running v4 over v6... >> Not you’d be back to a v4 app talking to a v4 app on hosts only having v6 >> addresses configured natively. >> >> - Alain. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Softwires mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
