[arin-ppml] The non-deployment of IPv6
Lee Dilkie wrote:
> Don't you essentially *have* multi-homing if you are dual-stack?
No. Multi-homing != dual stack. Dual stack can be as simple as having a
link local v6 address on your machine without even being able to see any
other v6 devices on the network.
> If you
> are multi-homed on IPv4, you don't really need it on IPv6, do you?
Yes, you do (imho). The two are mutually exclusive, even if all of your
IPv6 transits are over v4 tunnels, redundant paths will better protect
you from having your v6 prefixes fall off the earth.
> If an
> IPv6 route is unavailable, the connection will be established on IPv4.
...and the time-out value in some applications (such as my preferred SSH
client for Windows) to fall-over to v4 can become frustrating. For a
content provider, the time for a browser to switch to v4 when the
providers internal v6 is unreachable could be potentially disasterous.
> Multi-homing IPv6 will matter once IPv6-only networks get rolled out and
> I don't see that happening for some time yet.
I disagree completely. The same mentality that is applied to v4
resiliency should be applied all the same to v6. Not only that, it is
extremely easy to v6 multi-home, as there are several very large ISPs
who offer *free* peering/transit over tunnels that you can use in
conjunction with your existing providers. [plug: he.net].