Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for mobile]
Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com> Sun, 26 December 2010 13:25 UTC
Return-Path: <cb.list6@gmail.com>
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 7EBED3A67A4 for <v6ops@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Dec 2010 05:25:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 GYxk5ifwPqXB for <v6ops@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Dec 2010 05:25:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qy0-f172.google.com (mail-qy0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EF993A67A3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Dec 2010 05:25:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qyk34 with SMTP id 34so9202860qyk.10 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Dec 2010 05:27:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=3lobJbFM6CfOCsD//1iixJ7b1UMzD7J85+f8C6sLo6k=; b=KTJJvNI+WsYHanp2yNBxNCf6WwlBAsGfK+29jR1umNTMg53wS7npePRDe26lDdCOJe emaxm43NXWQyyA+6zZRwZoyVTxdXFluzB3FS9Ed1dea2lq74NfTc4lPLWV1+nsrypjYE gdkdS2D496kIiBg6zQhFmQAqBTRbK4upiBGeA=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=IeY69p/A2e/nBlzQTeBUzxy816W8iJeA1pRtN4JvhcRsLTjhPAba2PVgm+Xd+rMNK3 3ib+5tAg7uQzjb9MtOQoV7W4qW177psjZYtWApgU7UUzZZvEaebqmDvq0jrJw630ESNb mTfjkR7xPxS3M/rgPQBbsqcpp9+UC3viH8zOY=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.231.9 with SMTP id jo9mr10169641qcb.201.1293370052703; Sun, 26 Dec 2010 05:27:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.229.106.214 with HTTP; Sun, 26 Dec 2010 05:27:32 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <C93D729F.17107%hesham@elevatemobile.com>
References: <20101226105047.GG3695@Space.Net> <C93D729F.17107%hesham@elevatemobile.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 05:27:32 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=JVnSiEggSD+mBthTwUqQdqTrJD-SUwJM55Wxm@mail.gmail.com>
From: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: Hesham Soliman <hesham@elevatemobile.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 13:25:29 -0000
On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 3:30 AM, Hesham Soliman <hesham@elevatemobile.com> wrote: > > > > On 26/12/10 9:50 PM, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> 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. > Umm.... there is a lot of content available of IPv6 today. I have a very good understanding of where my mobile users are going today to get content. I also know that Google, Facebook, and now Yahoo to a lesser degree and a few others are highly functional on IPv6 today. I feel VERY confident that my IPv6-only + NAT64 users, by the end of 2011, will service over 50% of their content natively over IPv6. Google and Facebook are whales in the USA, when they move, the industry moves. Cameron > Hesham > >> >> "If they have enough IPv4 addresses to run dual-stack, what's the benefit in >> running dual-stack?" >> >> Gert Doering >> -- NetMaster > > > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > v6ops@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops >
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Martin Millnert
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Mikael Abrahamsson
- [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Fred Baker
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Fred Baker
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile teemu.savolainen
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile teemu.savolainen
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile teemu.savolainen
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile teemu.savolainen
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Xiangsong Cui
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile jouni korhonen
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Thomas Habets
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Thomas Habets
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Thomas Habets
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Joel Jaeggli
- [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for mobi… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Satoru Matsushima
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Joel Jaeggli
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Joel Jaeggli
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile teemu.savolainen
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Joel Jaeggli
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile teemu.savolainen
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Frank Bulk - iName.com
- [v6ops] take a breather... Worse than NATed IPv4?… Joel Jaeggli
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Gert Doering