On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Michel Py <
michel(_at_)arneill-py(_dot_)sacramento(_dot_)ca(_dot_)us> wrote:
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote :
So lets stop asking ISPs 'do you support IPv6' and instead ask 'Is your
Internet service 32 bit or 128'?
Creative. Since freeIPv6porn.com this is the definitely one of the best
marketing attempts that I can remember.
However, I would be concerned that deciders who would be tempted by that
pick-up line had been earlier adopters of 64-bit OS and found 64-bit
drivers for their existing peripherals (or the lack, thereof) disturbing.
Actually, that is part of the message.
Going to IPv6 is not easy or inexpensive. And one of the reasons that is
the case is that there has been an assumption that it will 'just happen'
and that there is no need to consider bridge technologies.
People literally laughed at me when I said that we needed to embrace NAT to
deploy IPv6. Today there are very few people who don't get the reasons why.
But if you look at the efforts O/S vendors had to go through to get to 64
bits, NAT is a minor carbuncle in comparison. The way a 64 bit O/S runs a
32 bit program is not pretty.
Actually IPv6 is a 64 bit Internet, not 128 bits.
Better to forget that and try to sell it as 128 bits, as nobody else has
been burned but that number yet.
I think it would sound like twice the pain.