[arin-ppml] v4 to v6 obstacles

[Owen DeLong]

On Oct 29, 2009, at 5:51 AM, <michael.dillon at bt.com> <michael.dillon at bt.com 
 > wrote:

>>> 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)?
>
> This is meaningless.
>
No, it really isn't...

> It is one thing to "go dual stack" on your core network
> architecture that rarely grows in number of devices, and
> which has enough spare IPv4 addresses in existing blocks
> to last another 5 years. But it is an entirely different
> thing to "go dual stack" on an edge architecture that is
> continuosly growing and which need an infusion of new
> IPv4 addresses every 6 months to handle growth.
>
Uh, those three have publicly committed to having IPv6-enabled
services for end-users.  That's not just their core, that's their
web servers, load balancers, etc.  The whole 9 yards, as it were.

That's not meaningless, it's major progress.  The more content
producers that make it to full dual-stack functionality before IPv4
runout, the better.  If enough get there, then, IPv6-only eyeballs
won't be such a bad thing as current speculation seems to think.

Owen