[AusNOG] IPv6

[Mark ZZZ Smith]

I'm starting to suspect you don't or haven't worked for an ISP (and this list is primarily about ISPs, not individual home users, so ISP scenarios are always the underlying context). In that case, you won't have either the problems or will see the benefits of dealing with things at ISP level scale.

The effect of one customer becoming IPv6 enabled won't be significant when it comes to buying CGN capacity. The effects become significant when 1000s or 10s of 1000s of customers use IPv6 instead of CGN'd IPv4. This is because traffic volumes are in the Gbps or 10s of Gbps, and IPv6 forwarding is much simpler and therefore will be far cheaper than trying to perform NAT functions on the equivalent multi-gigabit volumes of IPv4 traffic. 

________________________________

From: Noel Butler <noel.butler at ausics.net>
To: Russell Langton <russell3901 at gmail.com> 
Cc: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net 
Sent: Tuesday, 31 March 2015, 9:24
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] IPv6



Indeed it was, though I confess I messed up in one thing, the percentage, I realised in proofing it for typos that that did not look right :)  Its's actually only about 8% but .04%, however, since I rarely go to any of those working sites except youtube, and once in a while google and wikipedia, it might as well be 0.04% :)



On 30/03/2015 18:12, Russell Langton wrote:
Hi Noel,
>
>
Very eye opening from a user point of view.
>
>
I know some of those websites have some ipv6 - ipv6.slashdot.org for example, but from a user point it goes to show that there is alot of work still to do.
>
>
>it would be interesting to undertake the same test in the future to see if any improvements.
> 
I am wondering if the admins of any of those domains are on the list and could comment on the ipv6 readiness and whats holding it back as a learning experience? 
>
>
> 

_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog