[arin-discuss] urgency of IPv6

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

Um, the biggest reason ATT went with the max 2GB transfer a month plans
was because they opened up "tethering"*  It sure PO'd the iphone users.

Ted

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tethering

On 6/28/2010 1:47 PM, Gary T. Giesen wrote:
> I'd also add that the user experience you expect on a mobile phone is a
> lot less than what you'd expect at home on your PC. There's a much
> greater variety of network-using applications on a PC, that are just not
> practical on a mobile phone. Bitorrent and FTP come to mind.
>
> GG
>
> On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 16:36 -0400, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Who cares?  The important thing is that new eyeball users that are
>>>> unable to get IPv4 addresses can get to the content without bizarre
>>>> hacks to give them horribly degraded IPv4 connectivity.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't get horribly degraded IPv4 connectivity when I surf the web from
>>> my Windows Mobile 5 Smartphone on Sprint's network, and my wife doesn't
>>> get horribly degraded connectivity when she surfs the web from her
>>> Android phone on the T mobile network - but both those phones are on an
>>> IPv6 network, using some bizarre IPv6-IPv4 proxy back at the cell companies NOC.
>>>
>>
>> Right... Neither of you is a post-runout new eye-ball at this time and no, you are not
>> correctly understanding how the cellular network you are using is actually working.
>>
>> First, neither of those networks is IPv6 yet, if you check, you'll see that your phones
>> still just have IPv4 addresses. Eventually, as I understand the plans from both of
>> those providers, LTE will put you onto IPv6 most of the time with short-term leases
>> of IPv4 addresses when you need IPv4 connectivity. The network will remain dual-
>> stack.
>>
>> So, no, you are not currently using some bizarre ipv6-ipv4 proxy back at the
>> cell company NOC or anywhere else. At least not yet.
>>
>>> Or as Homer Simpson would say,
>>>
>>> Mmmmmmm... bizarre hacks
>>>
>> lol
>>
>>> Seriously, it should be obvious that the economics of rolling out a brand new technology that is going to use IPv6-only plus a bizarre
>>> hack to access the IPv4 Internet, is going to guarantee that the
>>> bizarre hack is going to be hacked on until it works quite well.
>>>
>> Why? Why not instead work towards a much cleaner solution of eliminating the need
>> to access the IPv4 internet? If the content and services people want are available on
>> IPv4 and IPv6, then, there's no need for bizarre hacks to allow ipv6-only clients to
>> reach IPv4-only content.
>>
>>> NAT is a bizarre hack, wouldn't you say?  Yet most users are
>>> happy with it.
>>>
>> Most users are happy with a great many things that are neither in their best
>> interests nor necessarily good for the community. Most users are happy to
>> keep putting gasoline in their automobiles, ignoring the damage being
>> done as BP "brings oil to america's shores" as we speak. For a long time,
>> most users were happy to try and get over viral diseases using antibiotics
>> even though they had no positive effect against the virus and helped to
>> breed antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria in the process.
>>
>>> I think the issue here is not that bizarre hacks will create horribly
>>> degraded IPv4 connectivity.  I think the issue is that bizarre V6-V4
>>> hacks will get institutionalized, which will make it a lot more difficult to ultimately drop IPv4 and go IPv6 only.  That is a separate and valid concern, but FUDing it around isn't going to help anything.
>>>
>> I think that both are valid concerns, but, my more immediate concern
>> is that bizarre hacks will create horribly degraded IPv4 connectivity with
>> a second order effect that user perception of acceptable will move from the
>> current moderately degraded situation to something even worse.
>>
>>> Technology companies have a long history of making bizarre hacks
>>> work.  Just look at Microsoft Windows, one of the most bizarre hacks
>>> in the history of technology (followed closely by Mac OS 6, 7, 8&  9.)
>>>
>> I think your statement here makes my point.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ARIN-Discuss
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>