IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for mobile]

Gert Doering <gert@space.net> Sun, 26 December 2010 10:48 UTC

Return-Path: <gert@space.net>
X-Original-To: v6ops@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD1A628C0E5 for <v6ops@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Dec 2010 02:48:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.494
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.494 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.105, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E+MjhQSfU4pi for <v6ops@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Dec 2010 02:48:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mobil.space.net (mobil.Space.Net [IPv6:2001:608:2:81::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F10FB3A6ADE for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Dec 2010 02:48:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mobil.space.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5C90F8191 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Dec 2010 11:50:47 +0100 (CET)
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
Received: from moebius3.space.net (moebius3.Space.Net [IPv6:2001:608:2:2::250]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4460CF8156 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Dec 2010 11:50:47 +0100 (CET)
Received: (qmail 18401 invoked by uid 1007); 26 Dec 2010 11:50:47 +0100
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 11:50:47 +0100
From: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
To: Hesham Soliman <hesham@elevatemobile.com>
Message-ID: <20101226105047.GG3695@Space.Net>
References: <20101225220317.GB3695@Space.Net> <C93D0675.170F6%hesham@elevatemobile.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ZP5/UaesXwhUwRsu"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <C93D0675.170F6%hesham@elevatemobile.com>
X-NCC-RegID: de.space
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: v6ops v6ops <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for mobile]
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 10:48:45 -0000

Hi,

On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 02:49:25PM +1100, Hesham Soliman wrote:
> => Yes I know that but I don't think you'd seriously say that IPv6 support
> was ready because 10% of the OS's supported it. That's silly. Beta releases
> by MS cannot count for any serious deployment. I can't believer we're
> discussing this

I'm just inserting some facts into the claims you have made.

But it doesn't really matter - you obviously have some very strong beliefs
how the IPv6 world is going to develop, and some other participants on this 
list have abandoned these ideas a few years ago already.

We run a full dual-stacked backbone and office network, and are working
on getting all the Internet facing servers to be dual-stacked - but for
the access customers (eyballs), the move to dual-stack has been extremely 
slow in the last 13 years, and it's hard to believe that this is going to
change all of a sudden.  

"If they have enough IPv4 addresses to run dual-stack, what's the benefit in 
running dual-stack?"

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
did you enable IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status