inline please, 2009/12/3 Cameron Byrne <[email protected]>: > 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. Are you predicting how many years? 10-20? It may also important that we need consider developers more than content provider.
> > 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 thanks, > > 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
