[141436] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Martin Millnert)
Wed Jun 8 08:56:24 2011
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikm0bDUwbKoHjtgvnpNagQoF1bRjshSS00Tnugzi2CTtg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 08:51:42 -0400
From: Martin Millnert <millnert@gmail.com>
To: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Cameron,
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 custom=
ers.
>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A02. =A0 =A0 =A0No ability to deploy those customers on =
IPv6.
>>>>
>>>> 2 has little bearing on need of LSN to access v4. =A0Insufficient amou=
nt
>>>> 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, y=
ou can't
>>> deploy customers on IPv6 without IPv4.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> cough cough NAT64/DNS64 ...
>>
>
> cough DS-lite.
>
> Cameron
AF translators are in the same class of technology as LSN -- to me
they are the same (_NAT_64).
Someone who thinks you will be successful in selling an Internet with
pure ipv6 only access today to consumers must be living on a different
planet.
Cheers,
Martin
