[141391] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Jun 7 23:51:57 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinSFRsR7rnmMtgr3PL4fCxzh-jY3JEn689wGBzy0j_Jmw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 20:47:43 -0700
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@colitti.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jun 7, 2011, at 7:01 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
> Moving them to IPv6 and hoping that enough of the content providers
> move forward fast enough to minimize the extent of the LSN deployment
> required.
>
> The problem here is not content, it's access. Look at World IPv6 day.
> What percentage of web content is represented? Probably order of 10%.
> How about access? Our public stats still say 0.3%
LSN won't be required by failure of access providers to migrate.
LSN will be required by failure of content providers to turn on AAAA.
LSN is required when access providers come across the following two
combined constraints:
1. No more IPv4 addresses to give to customers.
2. No ability to deploy those customers on IPv6.
For all but the most inept of access providers, they will have some ability
to put customers on IPv6 prior to the day they would have to deploy LSN.
Owen
