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

[Hesham Soliman <[e-mail]>]

On 26/12/10 9:50 PM, "Gert Doering" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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.

=> Actually I have no idea about the future, I'm questioning statements and
assumptions made. I'll be the first to say I don't know what will happen but
I do know what my opinion is based on the current state of play.

> 
> 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.

=> Do you have IPv6 access natively? I would guess that until you dual stack
your servers and allocate IPv6 addresses to those end systems you won't see
much traffic on IPv6. Lets face it, there is nothing IPv6 on the Internet
now. But my point is that this will gradually happen and being DS'ed makes
you ready for a slow but reliable transition where apps won't suffer.

Hesham

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