Cameron, On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Cameron Byrne <cb.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 5:47 AM, Cameron Byrne <cb.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Jun 7, 2011, at 9:59 PM, Martin Millnert wrote: >>> >>>> Owen, >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: >>>>> LSN is required when access providers come across the following two >>>>> combined constraints: >>>>> >>>>> 1. No more IPv4 addresses to give to customers. >>>>> 2. No ability to deploy those customers on IPv6. >>>> >>>> 2 has little bearing on need of LSN to access v4. Insufficient amount >>>> of IPv4 addresses => LSN required. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Martin >>> >>> No, if you have the option of deploying the customers on IPv6, you don't >>> need LSN. >>> >>> The problem is that until the vast majority of content is dual-stack, you >>> can't >>> deploy customers on IPv6 without IPv4. >>> >>> >> >> cough cough NAT64/DNS64 ... >> > > cough DS-lite. > > Cameron
AF translators are in the same class of technology as LSN -- to me they are the same (_NAT_64). Someone who thinks you will be successful in selling an Internet with pure ipv6 only access today to consumers must be living on a different planet. Cheers, Martin
