Re: [v6ops] [OPSAWG] Heads up - Plea for allocating a /8 to ISPs
Joel Jaeggli <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ops,gmane.ietf.v6ops |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Joel's widget number 2 On Nov 16, 2010, at 7:48, Michael Newbery <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 16/11/2010, at 12:38 PM, David Conrad wrote: > >> On Nov 15, 2010, at 1:16 PM, Michael Newbery wrote: >>> NAT444 doesn't solve their looming next problem---that of being unable to access the (rapidly) increasing IPv6-only Internet, and absent working NAT46 and with no likely prospect of same, the ONLY way they will get this access is by upgrading their CPE. >> >>> >>> Am I missing something obvious? >> >> When do you expect there to be any commercially viable sites or services that are reachable via IPv6 only? > > It's not just the 'hosts'. A large amount of traffic is peer to peer, and I don't mean file sharing. If you only have an IPv4 address and want to game, or VoIP to someone with only an IPv6 address, then you are going to be upset. Hosts running IP stacks are both clients and servers. So long as IP has existed that has been the case. P2P applications are the natural state of things rather than some odd corner case. It's fair to conclude that whatever happens, the p2p case in the v4 space is going to continue to erode and if you want to preserve your ability to do that, you're going to have take positive steps to retain it. > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops