[141399] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Palmer)
Wed Jun 8 01:43:21 2011
From: Christopher Palmer <Christopher.Palmer@microsoft.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@colitti.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 05:42:31 +0000
In-Reply-To: <3A963CEF-5FEF-44BF-A3ED-1324C10FAAD7@delong.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
The title of this ongoing thread is giving me heart palpitations.
Content access over IPv6 may help "justify" ISPs investing in IPv6, but it =
in no means is a prerequisite technically.
LSNs are "fine" when deployed in parallel with IPv6 IMHO. There has to be a=
pathway to "good" networking.=20
To Lorenzo's point - I really think the next big hurdle in the transition i=
s getting access numbers to something respectable. World IPv6 Day has only =
be going for a few hours, but things seem to be going fine, and it's our ho=
pe (currently) to keep www.xbox.com available over IPv6 indefinitely. I exp=
ect other participants will keep IPv6 enabled for some or all of their resp=
ective portfolios.=20
This leads me to worry that in 6-18 months we'll be in a position where a l=
ot of major content has permanently transitioned, and we're still at <1% ac=
cess range. That will be awkward.
I'm not an ISP - but I absolutely expect that IPv6 roll-outs have long time=
-horizons and are fairly complex. So I hope folks are looking at IPv6 NOW, =
and not simply waiting for Google/Bing/Yahoo/Interwebz to enable permanent =
content access and organizational justification.
Christopher.Palmer@microsoft.com
IPv6 @ Microsoft
-----Original Message-----
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen@delong.com]=20
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 8:48 PM
To: Lorenzo Colitti
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
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.
>=20
> 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
