[arin-ppml] v4 to v6 obstacles

[Matthew Kaufman]

Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Oct 28, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Lee Dilkie wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Chris Grundemann wrote:
>>> I don't think it depends on a % of everyone but rather on the right
>>> groups leading.  If a significant amount of content (facebook,
>>> youtube, itunes, major news sites and what have you) was dual-stacked,
>>> that could make at least residential / home-use IPv6 only service
>>> practical for at least some users, especially if it was offered at a
>>> reduced cost.  That opens the door and starts the ball rolling.  I am
>>> not going to say that we will (or even can) reach 100% IPv6
>>> penetration before we run out of available IPv4 in that manner but I
>>> am not positive that it is out of reach yet either...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Agreed. That is why I put a ? on the 80%. If some really big and
>> important players (applications) go dual stack, that covers a lot of
>> territory.
>
> You mean like:
>
> Google
> Yahoo
> MSN
>
> (All of whom have publicly announced dual stack plans)?
>
If I have dual-stack IPv6 + NAT (or if my ISP was lucky, public) IPv4 
service, how is my access to Google, Yahoo or MSN better than it is if I 
have *only* IPv4 via NAT?

When there's an answer to that question more exciting than "the turtle 
dances when you go to kame.net", people will care and demand IPv6. Until 
then, why would they bother?

I've had every desktop in my house IPv6-enabled for over a year. I've 
experienced absolutely no difference, except for a few sites that are a 
bit slower to reach as a result. On those days when, for whatever 
reason, the IPv6 is down... I don't even notice until I happen to see it 
in the logs.

Matthew Kaufman