2 ms·
> It's now obvious that moving servers to dual-stack, then clients progressively onto IPv6 (through provider address-space exhaustion) is a sound plan. It's no
by geocar 11y ago
> It's now obvious that moving servers to dual-stack, then clients progressively onto IPv6 (through provider address-space exhaustion) is a sound plan.
It's not obvious. A twenty-year deployment plan is a joke: Maybe this is the best they could come up with, but that doesn't convince me this was a good plan, or IPv8 should be modelled on this deployment.
> No sound company today will launch its services in IPv4 only and eschew 10%-25% of potential traffic
You have that backwards: No sound company would launch its services in IPv6 only because the Internet is IPv4.
- sergiosgc 11y ago> It's not obvious. A twenty-year deployment plan is a joke: Maybe this is the best they could come up with, but that doesn't convince me this was a good plan, or IPv8 should be modelled on this deployment. It weren't broke, so nobody would ever fix it. A twenty year deployment period has no intrinsic problem, only philosophical ones. IPv6 was not needed, if not for the IPv4 exhaustion. When it became necessary, deployment started. > You have that backwards: No sound company would launch its services in IPv6 only because the Internet is IPv4. You read me wrong. I did not mean single stack IPv6. I meant dual stack IPv6/v4. The Internet is no longer IPv4 only. If it isn't clear to you yet, it will become so along the next 12-24 months.