[AusNOG] My Predictions for the ISP Industry

[Jake Anderson]

I reckon once customers can actually get V6 and websites start 
supporting it, we'll see all the dodgy IPv4 hacks, (carrier nat etc) 
still happen so they can maintain  IPv4 connectivity and around that 
point they will just say, we "support" the IPv6 interweb. What's that 
you're having problems with "insert old computer game" or "magic 
productivity application" I guess they are too old, they are unsupported 
using that old standard, ipv6 has been around for a decade now don't you 
know?

Telstra(bigpond?) has been using private address ranges on its 3G 
Internet for a while plays merry hell with VPN's when the private ip 
telstra allocates sits inside the range of the VPN target.

On 03/14/2012 03:13 AM, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
> Mark,
>
> At no point did I suggest that anyone turn off IPv4 - probably ever. 
>  If you think that, then you sadly misunderstood my email.  We will be 
> living in a dual stack world for a long time before people put a 
> bullet in ipv4.
>
> My email's point was that you have to do IPv6 as well as IPv4.  Was I 
> really that unclear?
>
> FYI:
>
> On the 6th of June 2012, less than 3 months from now, Facebook, Cisco, 
> Google, Microsoft Bing, Yahoo, Akamai and many others have pledged to 
> turn on IPv6 on their primary sites (www.) permanently - leaving it 
> on, after the successful trial of IPv6 Day last year.
>
> See: http://www.worldipv6launch.org/
>
>
> ...Skeeve
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 02:52, Mark Delany <g2x at juliet.emu.st 
> <mailto:g2x at juliet.emu.st>> wrote:
>
>     > But, it will take most ISPs a year or two to fully integrate
>     IPv6 into
>     > their networks, and those who haven't started doing it yet,
>     might as well
>     > be planning to shut down their businesses because in the next
>     year or two,
>     > it will be too late...
>
>     Really? In which decade do you think that facebook.com
>     <http://facebook.com>, yahoo.com <http://yahoo.com>,
>     twitter.com <http://twitter.com> and google.com
>     <http://google.com> will stop returning an A RR? And what is
>     their incentive for doing so?
>
>     You need to explain why a business would voluntarily stop listening to
>     IPv4 traffic and why ISPs would stop carrying it.
>
>     If you have no explanation for that, then what has any ISP got to lose
>     by just carrying IPv4? After all, it gets to everywhere and probably
>     will do so for a very long time into the future.
>
>     The big problem is that turning off IPv4 has no value-add and turning
>     on IPv6 has no value-add, so no one cares to do either. Ergo,
>     IPv4-only systems will continue to work for the foreseeable
>     future. That means there is zero imperative to support IPv6.
>
>     I'll be proved wrong when any major website discards their A RR web
>     site and only advertise an AAAA web-site. Any volunteers? Apnic? Arin?
>     ICANN? eintellego.net <http://eintellego.net>? Jut curious. If
>     IPv6 is such a hit, when do you
>     guys plan to drop your IPv4 RR?
>
>
>     Mark.
>     _______________________________________________
>     AusNOG mailing list
>     AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net <mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
>     http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20120314/b4561158/attachment.html>