On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 9:02 PM, Ca By <cb.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Monday, June 1, 2015, Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org> wrote: >> >> >> In message >> <CAL9jLaYXCdfViHbUPx-=rs4vsx5mfecpfue8b7vq+au2hcx...@mail.gmail.com> >> , Christopher Morrow writes: >> > So... I don't really see any of the above arguments for v6 in a vm >> > setup to really hold water in the short term at least. I think for >> > sure you'll want v6 for public services 'soon' (arguably like 10 yrs >> > ago so you'd get practice and operational experience and ...) but for >> > the rest sure it's 'nice', and 'cute', but really not required for >> > operations (unless you have v6 only customers) >> >> Everyone has effectively IPv6-only customers today. IPv6 native + >> CGN only works for services. Similarly DS-Lite and 464XLAT.
ok, and for the example of 'put my service in the cloud' ... the service is still accessible over ipv4 right? > Agreed. Here is some data. > > It's worth noting that the Samsung Galaxy S6 launched with IPv6 on by > default at AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile. > > And the majority of the T-Mobile at Verizon customer base is on IPv6, so > IPv4 is the minority right now in mobile. Oh, and when i say ipv4 is the > minority i mean NAT44. > > Proper public ipv4 is not even on the mobile radar, but ipv6 is but.. http/s to an ipv4 address works, so...
