In message
<20100528154216(_dot_)D9FEE6BE562(_at_)mercury(_dot_)lcs(_dot_)mit(_dot_)edu>,
Noel Chiappa write
s:
> From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= <paf(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
> As native IPv6 connections are compared more and more with IPv4 NAT:ed
> connections, I think this will go quicker than what people think. Note
> that most of the difference between the protocols are features and
> operational experiences the ISPs have. For the end user...how much
> difference is there really in how Google or Facebook works?
> ...
> The end user though, will not notice when IPv6 is in use.
Really? As far as I can tell, there is still no general, defined, method to
allow an IPv6 host with a v6-only address (i.e. not an IPv4 address embedded
in an IPv6 address) to talk to an IPv4-only host.
A IPv6 only host has to have access to a IPv4 address to talk to IPv4 only
hosts. The simplest way to do this is to actually stay dual stack and use
DS-lite. The other way is to go through a NAT64 which will tend to break
more applications as it need to change more on the data streams.
So, for all that content which is IPv4 only, how does an IPv6-only host get
to it? And if there is no 'it just works' mechanism to do so, people will
definitely notice if their machines convert to IPv6.
The are product which do DS-lite today. There are products that do NAT64
today.
As for people noticing. They won't generally notice IPv6 being turned on.
They will notice IPv4 being turned off. But one does not imply the other.
(I'm not talking about ISPs which use IPv6 internally, but don't expose it to
the user: that just like ISPs which use ATM internally, but don't expose it t
o
the user - yet another internal technology. I'm talking about the _users_
using IPv6 as their service interface. CGNAT doesn't count either, that's jus
t
a differently engineered NAT - i.e. existing IPv4 technology.)
I mean, for example, people go to lots and lots of web sites, so saying 'oh,
as long as the big top sites support IPv6 access to content, that's all we
need' won't cut it. Yes, the top content providers get the bulk of the
traffic, but the tail (even for an individual) is very long.
So are people really going to want to convert to IPv6, unless there's some
'it just works' mechanism that lets them get to basically everyone in that
long tail? Without having _all_ the content v6-accessible, I reckon there's a
_substantial_ actual disincentive for users to go v6-only. (Think Metcalfe's
Law.)
And without a lot of users who are v6-only, what's the incentive for
_everyone_ to make content available in v6? (Close loop, feed back.)
Noel
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf