Hi, Remi, just one discussion for your last word.
If you have no problem to visit google IPv4 website, why you want to do it through IPv6? thanks -Hui 2009/12/7 Rémi Després <[email protected]>: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Nick Heatley Sent: 04 December 2009 10:12 > >> My assumptions or opinions, if I am short-sighted please let me know: >> - the operator controls the bearer network and UE to some extent, so for >> the operator the transition starts here IMHO, regardless of what happens >> regarding the Content. >> - dual stack UE is compulsory if you wish to support roaming, as visited >> networks may require a fall back to IPv4. Otherwise roaming partners >> need to allow IPv6 PDP in coordination (I don't see this "flag day" in >> any standards?). >> - bearer network can have the capacity for dual stack, but what you >> offer each UE is selected by the network, then network can choose to >> offer a dual stack UE an IPv6-only bearer. If you want to support >> roaming visitors to your network then continued support of IPv4-only UEs >> is mandatory. So a true IPv6-only bearer network seems false to me. >> - from my view in Western Europe, shortage of public addressing for App >> Servers is not an issue at all. We are concerned with exhaustion of UE >> addressing. Is that true in other markets? (Therefore dual stack of App >> Servers where app allow, seems to be a prerequisite). >> - As above UEs need to be dual stack for roaming. I would not turn off >> that functionality. But any other change to the UE better be worth it - >> I agree UE functionality should otherwise be stripped down for cost. >> - I don't understand your transition, do you mean the network literally >> can only support IPv6-only? >> - My overall customer-centric opinion: I want to move to IPv6 in the >> long-term. But I don't want the exhaustion of IPv4 addressing, >> especially the artificial and arbitrary deadline provided by the 17 >> million private addressing to set my IPv6 introduction date. I want to >> do it when the customer experience offered by IPv4 is matched by IPv6. > > I largely agree with points made. > > However, rather than the question "when should one move from IPv4 to IPv6", > the one that seems important for the short term is "when should one move > from IPv4-only to IPv4 PLUS IPv6". > > To this question, the answer is IMHO clearly "NOW", for all parties: > - OS vendors (it's largely done in PCs). > - Service providers (some have done it, or plan to do it, in particular with > 6rd to offer native IPv6 across unchanged IPv4 infrastructures) > - CPE manufacturers (the less advanced AFAIK). > > Customer experience with IPv4 PLUS IPv6 is already satisfactory, as shown by > the regularly increasing IPv6 traffic of Free customers > (www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-58/content/presentations/ipv6-free). > > These customers, without having to be concerned, and without loss of > quality, have their accesses to Google services made in IPv6 (i.e. with > end-to-end network transparency and therefore no consumption of ports in any > NAT). > > Thoughts? > > RD > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
