[141409] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Wed Jun 8 03:15:41 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <0AB09EDBCD1C484EBE45978D62F3513C3CE402D0@TK5EX14MBXW601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 00:13:25 -0700
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 Jun 7, 2011, at 10:42 PM, Christopher Palmer wrote:
> The title of this ongoing thread is giving me heart palpitations.
>=20
> Content access over IPv6 may help "justify" ISPs investing in IPv6, =
but it in no means is a prerequisite technically.
>=20
> LSNs are "fine" when deployed in parallel with IPv6 IMHO. There has to =
be a pathway to "good" networking.=20
>=20
How many of them are you planning on maintaining? May I quote you on =
this after you've been doing so for
a year and received 2 or three lovely FISA subpoenas for your LSN logs?
> To Lorenzo's point - I really think the next big hurdle in the =
transition is 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 hope (currently) to keep www.xbox.com available over =
IPv6 indefinitely. I expect other participants will keep IPv6 enabled =
for some or all of their respective portfolios.=20
>=20
I agree with Lorenzo to a point, but...
Access will happen in due time by virtue of IPv4 runout. If content is =
available dual-stack ahead of that,
it dramatically reduces the need for (and load on) LSN. If it is not, =
then, LSN is going to be a much much
uglier situation to an extent that it might even have a catch-22 effect =
on IPv6 deployment in the
eyeball networks.
> This leads me to worry that in 6-18 months we'll be in a position =
where a lot of major content has permanently transitioned, and we're =
still at <1% access range. That will be awkward.
>=20
Not really.
> 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.
>=20
I don't think any of them are really waiting for that. However, I do =
think getting to that point is actually more
critical at this juncture than getting the eyeball networks fully =
deployed.
Owen
> Christopher.Palmer@microsoft.com
> IPv6 @ Microsoft
>=20
>=20
> -----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
>=20
>=20
> On Jun 7, 2011, at 7:01 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>=20
>> 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%
>=20
> LSN won't be required by failure of access providers to migrate.
>=20
> LSN will be required by failure of content providers to turn on AAAA.
>=20
> LSN is required when access providers come across the following two
> combined constraints:
>=20
> 1. No more IPv4 addresses to give to customers.
> 2. No ability to deploy those customers on IPv6.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> Owen
>=20
