In message <CAL9jLaaQUP1UzoKag3Kuq8a5bMcB2q6Yg=B_=1fFWxRN6K-bNA@mail.gmail.com
, Christopher Morrow writes: On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 9:02 PM, Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, June 1, 2015, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
In message <CAL9jLaYXCdfViHbUPx-=rs4vSx5mFECpfuE8b7VQ+Au2hCXpMQ@mail.gmail.com> , Christopher Morrow writes:
So... I don't really see any of the above arguments for v6 in a vm setup to really hold water in the short term at least. I think for sure you'll want v6 for public services 'soon' (arguably like 10 yrs ago so you'd get practice and operational experience and ...) but for the rest sure it's 'nice', and 'cute', but really not required for operations (unless you have v6 only customers)
Everyone has effectively IPv6-only customers today. IPv6 native + CGN only works for services. Similarly DS-Lite and 464XLAT.
ok, and for the example of 'put my service in the cloud' ... the service is still accessible over ipv4 right?
It depends on what you are trying to do. Having something in the cloud manage something at home. You can't reach the home over IPv4 more and more these days as. IPv6 is the escape path for that but you need both ends to be able to speak IPv6. This will happen to business as well. The ability to be able to be able to call out to everyone is lost if the cloud provider doesn't fully support IPv6. There are a whole segment of applications that don't work, or don't work well, or don't work without a whole lot of additional investment when one end is behind a CGN (covers all the above as IPv4 is supplied over a CGN). This attitude of we don't have to invest in IPv6 yet because we have lots of public IPv4 addresses stinks to high heaven these day, whether you are a ISP, cloud provider or someone else. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org