[172060] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 at 50% for VZW (Re: NAT IP and Google)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Martin Hannigan)
Thu May 22 21:14:15 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <509325F4-F695-473C-B6FA-309EF7F23116@puck.nether.net>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 21:14:06 -0400
From: Martin Hannigan <hannigan@gmail.com>
To: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Thursday, May 22, 2014, Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> wrote:
>
> On May 22, 2014, at 8:04 AM, Livingood, Jason <
> Jason_Livingood@cable.comcast.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> > On 5/21/14, 9:38 PM, "Jared Mauch" <jared@puck.nether.net <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On May 21, 2014, at 7:17 PM, Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Verizon Wireless is at 50% ipv6 penetration
> >>
> >> I suspect this would go up significantly if Twitter and Instagram would
> >> IPv6 enable their services. Same for pintarest.
> >
> > +1
> > We naturally focus a lot on network enablement here, but IMO it is a
> great
> > time to focus on more web-based services embracing IPv6 with another June
> > 6 just around the corner. :-)
>
>
> I'm waiting to see Akamai and Cachefly follow the lead of Cloudflare and
> make everything IPv6 by default. I remind vendors when I talk to them,
> "IPv6 first, then IP classic(tm)".
Jared,
Akamai has been v6 enabled for years. Customers have choices and know best.
Isn't your network still offering both as customer choices? :-)
Best,
-M<
