On Oct 1, 2015, at 12:06 , Curtis Maurand <cmaurand@xyonet.com> wrote:
On 10/1/2015 2:29 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 1, 2015, at 00:39 , Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1 October 2015 at 03:26, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
Windows XP does IPv6 fine so long as there is a IPv4 recursive server available. It's just a simple command to install IPv6.
netsh interface ipv6 install
If the customer knew how to do that he wouldn't still be using Windows XP.
Actually I don't expect Gmail and Facebook to be IPv4 only forever.
Gmail and Facebook are already dual stack enabled. But I do not see Facebook turning off IPv4 for a very long time. Therefore a customer that only uses the Internet for a few basic things will be able to get along with being IPv4-only for a very long time.
Yes and no…
I think you are right about facebook.
However, I think eventually the residential ISPs are going to start charging extra for IPv4 service. Some residences may pay for it initially, but if they think there’s a way to move away from it and the ISPs start fingerpointing to the specific laggards, you’ll see a groundswell of consumers pushing to find alternatives.
Owen
ipv6 is going to force a lot of consumers to replace hardware. Worse, it's not easy to set up and get right as ipv4 is.
--Curtis
You’re going to have to elaborate on that one…. I think IPv6 is actually quite a bit easier than IPv4, so please explicate in what ways it is harder to set up and get right? For the average household, it’s plug the IPv6-capable router in and let it go. For more advanced environments, it might take nearly as much effort as IPv4 and the unfamiliarity might add a couple of additional challenges the first time, but once you get past that, IPv6 has a lot of features that actually make it easier than IPv4. Not having to deal with NAT being just one of the big ones. Owen