On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Aryeh Gregor <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:01 PM, George Herbert <[email protected]> > wrote: >> You're making assumptions here that the residential ISPs in the US and >> Asia have stated aren't true... > > I'm awfully sure the assumption "customers will not pay for an > Internet connection that only connects to IPv6 addresses" is true, and > will remain true for at least five to ten years. How ISPs deal with > it is up to them, but it's not going to be anything that stops > customers from accessing IPv4-only sites. Once they have too few IPv4 > addresses to assign all customers unique IPv4 addresses, then they'll > share IPv4 addresses, such as via NAT -- as well as possibly giving > out unique, stable IPv6 addresses. > > On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:02 PM, River Tarnell <[email protected]> wrote: >> ISPs will probably do this, but I don't think it's right to say they'll >> *just* do this. In the US, for example, Comcast has been running IPv6 >> trials for a while, and expects to start giving end-user IPv6 addresses >> this year. > > Yes, but they'll have IPv4 access as well. Comcast's trial is > dual-stack, not IPv6-only: > > http://www.comcast6.net/ > > There's not going to be any market for IPv6-only residential > connections for the foreseeable future.
There won't be much choice when the ISPs run out of IPv4 space to allocate new users. As I said - we'll see it in Asia soon enough, and then the US down the road a bit longer. -- -george william herbert [email protected] _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
