On Monday, June 1, 2015, Tony Hain <alh-ietf@tndh.net> wrote:
Hugo Slabbert wrote:
snip
On this given point, though: Facebook -ne generic hosting platform
True, but it does represent a business decision to choose IPv6. The relevant point here is that the "NEXT" facebook/twitter/snapchat/... is likely being pushed by clueless investors into outsourcing their infrastructure to AWS/Azure/Google-cloud. This will prevent them from making the same business decision about system efficiency and long term growth that Facebook made due to decisions made by the cloud service operator.
This is the exact case for www.duckduckgo.com. They were ipv6, moved to aws, and lost support , no aaaa today To be honest, $dayjob may be next to lose ipv6 if / when www goes to the cloud
From my perspective, most of this conversation has centered on the needs of the service, and tried very hard to ignore the needs of the customer despite Owen and others repeatedly raising the point. While the needs of the service do impact the cost of delivery, a broken service is still broken. Personally I would consider "free" to be overpriced for a broken service, but maybe that is just me.
In any case, if the VM interface doesn't present what looks like a native IPv6 service to the application developer, IPv6 usage will be curtailed and IPv4 growing pains will continue to get worse.
Tony