[arin-ppml] v4 to v6 obstacles

[Matthew Kaufman]

Lee Howard wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
>   
>> From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at>
>> To: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
>>
>> 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?
>>     
>
> IPv6 is cheaper (for the ISP, who doesn't have to pass the expense on 
> to you) than large-scale NAT.
>   
But since they need to provide it *anyway* in order to give me 
dual-stack (which I need enabled anyway to reach the N% of the Internet 
that hasn't yet switched *and* my 10 year old laser printer and my 
in-home music system and the web interface of my solar power system and, 
and, and...), all we're talking about is "the ISP must pay for the NAT 
(and maybe some more public address space via a transfer market if they 
grow) *and* IPv6" vs. "the ISP must pay for the NAT and *not* IPv6".
>   
>> 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.
>>     
>
> That's the goal!  If you can't tell the difference, then that's a success!
>   
Actually that's the *problem*. If I can't tell the difference, then 
there's no reason for me to demand IPv6 *or* for my provider to give it 
to me.

IF it is possible to continue indefinitely providing dual-stack (NAT or 
otherwise for the IPv4), THEN it is possible to continue indefinitely 
*not* providing IPv6 at all.

Until there's an application for which I *can* tell the difference, in a 
big way.

Matthew Kaufman