[141435] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Cameron Byrne)
Wed Jun 8 08:53:26 2011
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinojz-3kz7PEcb0Rgx599po-agwtd9gubOrd111RJ4xQg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 05:48:08 -0700
From: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 5:47 AM, Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 7, 2011, at 9:59 PM, Martin Millnert wrote:
>>
>>> Owen,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>>>> LSN is required when access providers come across the following two
>>>> combined constraints:
>>>>
>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A01. =A0 =A0 =A0No more IPv4 addresses to give to custome=
rs.
>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A02. =A0 =A0 =A0No ability to deploy those customers on I=
Pv6.
>>>
>>> 2 has little bearing on need of LSN to access v4. =A0Insufficient amoun=
t
>>> of IPv4 addresses =3D> LSN required.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Martin
>>
>> No, if you have the option of deploying the customers on IPv6, you don't
>> need LSN.
>>
>> The problem is that until the vast majority of content is dual-stack, yo=
u can't
>> deploy customers on IPv6 without IPv4.
>>
>>
>
> cough cough NAT64/DNS64 ...
>
cough DS-lite.
Cameron
> Cameron
>
>> Owen
>>
>>
>>
>
