On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
I understand this. However, the way that IPv6 migration is discussed in
most contexts seems to be predicated upon the notion that there is some
industry imperative to light up network with IPv6. My point is that
there is not.
We'll all be better off if we all move to IPv6 and don't go the
NAT44(44....) road longer than necessary. We can decide we want to wait
for everybody else, which means we won't all be better off, ever.
I disagree somewhat with this view. The significant question is whether
the users are actually accessing apps/services/content via IPv6, or if
it's essentially white noise.
Why is that a significant question?
If they have IPv6, they will access a significant amount of content via
IPv6. If they don't, then it's nothing.
I don't get why people are arguing that we shouldn't do IPv6 because IPv6
is so little of total traffic. There is so little traffic because ISPs do
not turn on IPv6. The content is there now.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swm...@swm.pp.se
