[75534] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christian Kuhtz)
Mon Nov 15 12:28:15 2004
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 11:43:07 -0500
From: "Christian Kuhtz" <christian.kuhtz@BellSouth.com>
To: "Jared Mauch" <jared@puck.nether.net>
Cc: "Daniel Roesen" <dr@cluenet.de>, <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20041115160355.GA68395@puck.nether.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On 11/15/04 11:03 AM, "Jared Mauch" <jared@puck.nether.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 09:29:25AM -0500, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
>> On 11/15/04 12:18 AM, "Daniel Roesen" <dr@cluenet.de> wrote:
>>=20
>>> Unfortunate, even today there are not many option of transit ISPs
>>> who have a real native dual-stack deployment (I consider 6PE to be
>>> native)... most have just tunnels inside. Currently I cannot think
>>> of more than... hm... 3-4 ISPs who can deliver real amounts of
>>> native US-EU bandwidth.
>>=20
>> What sort of customers do these v6 SP's have for IPv6? What demands =
are
>> there for real amounts of IPv6 bandwidth?
>=20
> I've historically found that there are a number of FTP
> sites that get congested on IPv4 but are accessable via IPv6 (only).
But that's an artifact... There's no reason rooted in the protocols
themselves (and associated business reasons) as to why that should be a
lasting benefit. It's merely a reflection of poor capacity management =
and
idle (under utilized) IPv6 stacked server capacity..
Thanks for playing, though :)..
Regards,
Christian
*****
"The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity =
to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, =
and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination =
or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this =
information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is =
prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender =
and delete the material from all computers." 118
