[169997] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: misunderstanding scale
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nick Hilliard)
Sat Mar 22 17:06:08 2014
X-Envelope-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 21:05:35 +0000
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
To: Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>
In-Reply-To: <532DDB79.50808@fud.no>
Cc: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 22/03/2014 18:50, Tore Anderson wrote:
> * Nick Hilliard
>> the level of pain
>> associated with continued deployment of ipv4-only services is still nowhere
>> near the point that ipv6 can be considered a viable alternative.
>
> This depends on who you're asking; as a blanket statement it's
> demonstrably false: For the likes of T-Mobile USA¹ and Facebook², or
> even myself³, IPv6-only isn't just an «alternative». It's «happening».
FB, T-mobile and you are all using ipv6->ipv4 protocol translators because
ipv6-only services are not a viable alternative at the moment.
The advantage that using ipv6 gives in these deployment scenarios is that
it scales beyond the amount of address space available from rfc1918. As a
side effect, it also makes native end-to-end ipv6 connectivity pleasant.
Sadly, ipv4 address availability continues to be necessary at the same run
rate as before, except in situations where CGN is a possibility.
Nick
> [1]
> http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/TMobile-Goes-IPv6-Only-on-Android-44-Devices-126506
> [2]
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/doazzo5ygu3idna/WorldIPv6Congress-IPv6_LH%20v2.pdf
> [3] http://www.ipspace.net/IPv6-Only_Data_Centers
>
> Tore
>
