[141401] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Wed Jun 8 01:59:40 2011
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
In-Reply-To: <0AB09EDBCD1C484EBE45978D62F3513C3CE402D0@TK5EX14MBXW601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 07:59:24 +0200
To: Christopher Palmer <Christopher.Palmer@microsoft.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 8 jun 2011, at 7:42, Christopher Palmer wrote:
> 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.
You have to remember that the content guys need few addresses and once =
they have them they rarely need more, and IPv6 or not is pretty much a =
binary thing: yes for everyone, no for everyone. It's the opposite for =
consumer ISPs: they need tons of addresses on an ongoing basis but they =
can (for instance) give IPv6 to new users while not changing anything =
for existing users. So once some hurdles such as the limited =
availability of IPv6-capable CPEs and a plan on how to provision IPv6 =
are taken the ISPs have a lot of incentive to roll out IPv6 while the =
content guys can conceivably stay on IPv4 for a long time. The fact that =
IPv6 client to IPv4 server is an easy problem but the other way around a =
very hard one also points in this direction.
BTW, how are you guys dealing with path MTU discovery for IPv6? I've =
seen a few sites that have problems with this, such as www.nist.gov, but =
you guys seem ok.
