[158243] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Nov 26 20:16:42 2012
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <922F1ABF-7A2B-43CF-97DB-C0A859556A3F@arbor.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 17:15:00 -0800
To: "Dobbins, Roland" <rdobbins@arbor.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Nov 26, 2012, at 15:10 , "Dobbins, Roland" <rdobbins@arbor.net> =
wrote:
>=20
> On Nov 27, 2012, at 3:37 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>=20
>> CGN does not scale and cannot scale. At best, it's a hack that might =
allow us to cope with a few years of transition while there are still =
devices in homes that are IPv4-only, but it certainly doesn't reduce or =
remove the imperative.
>=20
> I agree wholeheartedly, but I'm unsure whether or not this view is =
held by those who control spending and prioritization within most, or =
even many, ISPs.
>=20
> Mobility (and everything is inexorably becoming mobile) is an obvious =
place where IPv6 makes a lot of sense, for example. But native IPv6 on =
one's own access networks and then gatewaying/proxying to IPv4 for =
actual 'Internet' connectivity seems to be a significant direction.
Interesting. All the IPv6 capable carriers I talk to are only =
gatewaying/proxying to IPv4 for things unreachable via IPv6.
If you've got an IPv6 capable cell phone on an IPv6 capable mobile =
network, I doubt that you get to google through an IPv4 proxy.
Owen
