Re: [v6ops] Operational Consensus on deployment

[Owen DeLong <[e-mail]>]

On Aug 4, 2014, at 4:11 PM, Mark Andrews <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> In message <[e-mail]>, "Fred Baker (fred)
> " writes:
>> 
>> The alternative is where Microsoft Azure finds itself now. They are out
>> of IPv4 address space and do not have a publicly announced IPv6 service.
>> To fill the gap, they are moving address space from Brazil to the US.
>> Now, lest someone think I'm slamming them, I have little doubt that they
>> have a long term plan; it's just not in evidence at the moment. But where
>> they stand, if they don't have a plan, they're screwed. They are only the
>> most public of a long list of companies with that problem...
> 
> Azure would still need the IPv4 addresses because the rest of the
> world as a whole has not moved to IPv6 yet.  While datacenters may
> be able to move to IPv6 only internally there is still a external
> need for IPv4 addresses.  IPv6 only gives some IPv4 address saving
> but not that much on the server side.  We are still a long way from
> turning off IPv4 servers.

We may be a long way from turning the existing ones off.

The address situation seems to suggest we may not be all that far from not turning on very many more new ones, however.

Owen