[arin-ppml] The non-deployment of IPv6
On Dec 7, 2009, at 2:49 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 1:57 PM, David Farmer wrote:
>>> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>>> Today, though, Vista bombed hard, and it's too early to see what
>>>> Win 7
>>>> will do - but I frankly don't see a huge reason to switch to it,
>>>> I have both Win XP and Win 7 at home and in the office. And
>>>> folks, does everyone here understand that Microsoft will be
>>>> releasing security updates and patches to XP Professional until
>>>> 4/8/2014? That
>>>> is almost 5 years from now. You can be sure that XP will be a
>>>> significant number of installed seats on the Internet until then,
>>>> as long as it is, IPv6 isn't going to be widely deployed.
>>>> As for IPv4+, or whatever alternative you dream up, unless you
>>>> have MS
>>>> buy-in, then you can just forget it. And MS is backing IPv6
>>> AMEN!!!, +1, You got it man!
>> 1. The lack of IPv6-only name resolution is not a significant
>> barrier to
>> IPv6 deployment. It would be a significant barrier to IPv4
>> 2. If M$ is going to be releasing patches to XP until 2014, then,
>> why would
>> you assume those patches will never include a patch that enables
>> DNS resolution from an IPv6 nameserver?
>> In reality, this is only really an issue if you are attempting to
>> deploy an XP
>> system in an IPv6-only environment. As long as you deploy it in an
>> IPv4 only
>> or a dual-stack environment and provide it at least one IPv4-based
>> things will work with IPv6.
> I think this is wishful thinking. It was certainly very possible to
> dual-stack IPX and IP and for a few years people did - but most admins
> hated it - and pressured Novell to adopt IP and abandon IPX. Novell
> of course did not want to do that as it would unlock customers from
> NetWare - with the result that admins basically gave up on NetWare
> and went to Windows NT Server. (of course there were other reasons
> Dual-stack is a problem in the corporate world because you have
> increased training costs. Admins switched internal networks to
> IP last time because the Internet pushed them to do it. Likely
> they will want to wait until significant IPv6 is deployed on the
> Internet before switching internal networks to IPv6 this time, and
> nothing on the Internet is doing the pushing to IPv6, which is why
> I think it will be a longer time coming.
I don't really see this as a problem. Getting desktops over to dual
really is last priority in my book. The important thing is getting
and content providers dual-stacked, because, the first systems that will
get forced to IPv6-only will be those that come on-line after IPv4
Likely the bulk of those will be end-users of some form or other.
> Don't forget most corps are on licensing agreements with MS that give
> them rights to run ANY PRIOR version of Windows in addition to the
> corporate one. Regardless of whether XP is available on pre-loads
> or not, many corps. will be buying Vista systems them loading XP
> images on them for some time.
Again, I really don't see this as a problem. Enterprise Desktop
of IPv6 really is last priority and for those enterprises that don't
to get it done in time, they are the ones that will suffer the impacts.