IETF Logo Mail Archive

[v6ops] Fwd: slashdot: IPv6-only Is Becoming Viable

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Fri, 13 January 2012 20:50 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70FF311E807A for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:50:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.354
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.354 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.245, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oaKZSlSxNXTn for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:50:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mtv-iport-1.cisco.com (mtv-iport-1.cisco.com [173.36.130.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C403711E8072 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:50:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; l=1456; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1326487832; x=1327697432; h=from:subject:date:references:to:message-id:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding; bh=2Mdvw01Uv62mzx2msWyCbj3BFsP0pd/13u6FRk87toI=; b=KeU2yFECFrwp1P27yNW/jxDeMMK8y8ZVTcpHjyMdHzPsi4M737cqiLMf tfr07CuN49otuzhaGRoUwf61vG/w71y9d+iTJSy1PX90yliuL/B0zdGIr Yo0iWGuITEsFnUxHJrWgLHDdTWY7UgNEISlFUEJ1cp70YzsJ7Ile1G3wv U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EAOSXEE+rRDoJ/2dsb2JhbABCrS+BBYFyAQEBAwESASdECxwDAQIvTQIIBhMih1gImF4BniKLOmMEiDyMVoVRjQ8
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,506,1320624000"; d="scan'208";a="23618979"
Received: from mtv-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.58.9]) by mtv-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Jan 2012 20:50:32 +0000
Received: from stealth-10-32-244-220.cisco.com (stealth-10-32-244-220.cisco.com [10.32.244.220]) by mtv-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q0DKoWju025507 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 20:50:32 GMT
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by stealth-10-32-244-220.cisco.com (PGP Universal service); Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:50:32 -0800
X-PGP-Universal: processed; by stealth-10-32-244-220.cisco.com on Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:50:32 -0800
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:50:23 -0800
References: <060c01ccd22f$f7269ae0$e573d0a0$@com>
To: v6ops v6ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <32EAD8B3-E30A-4A99-97A4-992757AD43A5@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: [v6ops] Fwd: slashdot: IPv6-only Is Becoming Viable
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 20:50:35 -0000

Several interesting comments in here, most notably the reference to IPv6-capable applications and to IPv4 as a "boat anchor".

> From: "Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com>
> Date: January 13, 2012 12:14:31 PM PST
> Subject: slashdot: IPv6-only Is Becoming Viable
> 
> http://slashdot.org/submission/1909164/
> 
> it has lots of slashdot-style embedded links, and text is:
> 
> 	"With the success of world IPv6 day in 2011, there is a lot of
> speculation about IPv6 in 2012. But simply turning on IPv6 does not make the
> problems of IPv4 exhaustion go away. It is only when services are usable
> with IPv6-only that the internet can clip the ties to the IPv4 boat anchor.
> That said, FreeBSD, Windows, and Android are working on IPv6-only
> capabilities. There are multiple accounts of IPv6-only network deployments.
> From those, we we now know that IPv6-only is viable in mobile, where over
> 80% (of a sampling of the top 200 apps) work well with IPv6-only. Mobile
> especially needs IPv6, since their are only 4 billion IPv4 address and
> approaching 50 billion mobile devices in the next 8 years. Ironically, the
> Android test data shows that the apps most likely to fail are peer-to-peer,
> like Skype. Traversing NAT and relying on broken IPv4 is built into their
> method of operating. P2P communications was supposed to be one of the key
> improvements in IPv6."
> 
> 
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email