dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
7
share rss forum feed

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to InvalidError

Re: World IPv6 Day

said by InvalidError:

Content is irrelevant, any content can travel just as easily over IPv4 and IPv6, IPv6 does not change anything fundamental there.

Lack of content and last mile ISP support are the biggest issues at the moment.

Having content provides a reason to actually enable the v6 Internet so to speak.
You need just enough content to get the ball rolling. Once IPv6 Launch day happens you'll see a much quicker rate of adoption.

file

join:2011-03-29
Riverview, NB
Two major ones have embraced IPv6 - Facebook and Youtube. I access both over IPv6 these days without realizing it.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
said by file:

Two major ones have embraced IPv6 - Facebook and Youtube. I access both over IPv6 these days without realizing it.

Facebook launched a bit early and this was only within the last two weeks to allow third party developers to work with said v6 support and v6 enable their apps.

YouTube is using a whitelist so who has access to YouTube even if they have v6 access now is quite limited. So at the moment you have to be using a resolver which has been whitelisted by Google and if that is the case you would have access to almost all of Google's web properties over v6 and not just YouTube (.e.g. GMail, Google search, Blogger, etc.)

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
reply to 34764170
said by 34764170:

Lack of content and last mile ISP support are the biggest issues at the moment.

On cable, sure. On DSL, PPPoE can tunnel IPv6 just as well as IPv4 without any intervention from the telephone company, only thing required is a 3rd-party ISP that supports PPPoE-IPv6.

Content-wise, I doubt we are going to see anything exclusive to IPv6 and even if there was, with 6to4/4to6 bridges would render that mostly moot.

said by 34764170:

Once IPv6 Launch day happens you'll see a much quicker rate of adoption.

Technically, IPv6 was launched over 12 years ago and I have been using it for over three years myself. Its market adoption is definitely slow but it is far too late to talk about a "launch" of IPv6 itself since it has been included in every desktop and laptop sold since Windows Vista's launch.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 recommendation

said by InvalidError:

On cable, sure. On DSL, PPPoE can tunnel IPv6 just as well as IPv4 without any intervention from the telephone company, only thing required is a 3rd-party ISP that supports PPPoE-IPv6.

Content-wise, I doubt we are going to see anything exclusive to IPv6 and even if there was, with 6to4/4to6 bridges would render that mostly moot.

I was not talking about TSI. Of course it is easier to provision v6 over a DSL network using PPPoE but the issue is ISPs enabling it period and that means going further than TSI has. Not all DSL networks use PPPoE. TSI is pretty disappointing in this regard so far.

The content does not have to be exclusive to IPv6. That is completely irrelevant. The vast majority will be dual-stack to start off with. It isn't moot either. Gateways like that result in worse performance, additional points of failure and having to invest in more hardware and at the scale they're working at the hardware is far from inexpensive. 6to4 is awful and needs to die a quick death.

said by InvalidError:

Technically, IPv6 was launched over 12 years ago and I have been using it for over three years myself. Its market adoption is definitely slow but it is far too late to talk about a "launch" of IPv6 itself since it has been included in every desktop and laptop sold since Windows Vista's launch.

As an open source developer I have been using it for 10 years now. By launch it is meant to be launched to the greater public. Simply shipping v6 capable OS, software, etc. does not magically result in all of this stuff actually being utilized.

There have been a lot of issues for why v6 hasn't gone anywhere from OS stacks, third-party app support, ISP / transit provider support and so on. But all areas are starting to hit a sweet spot. You don't need everyone and everything to support it but to hit a certain threshold.


openvz_ca

join:2008-12-13
canada
reply to InvalidError
said by InvalidError:

said by 34764170:

Lack of content and last mile ISP support are the biggest issues at the moment.

On cable, sure. On DSL, PPPoE can tunnel IPv6 just as well as IPv4 without any intervention from the telephone company, only thing required is a 3rd-party ISP that supports PPPoE-IPv6.

Content-wise, I doubt we are going to see anything exclusive to IPv6 and even if there was, with 6to4/4to6 bridges would render that mostly moot.

I don't see why you're talking about tunnels here...

Tunnels are a temporary solution for people without NATIVE IPv6. They are a means to access IPv6 networks over an IPv4 connection and are only a temporary solution while IPv6 deployments happen.

Also, you're mixing OSI layers. PPPoE (PPP) is layer 2 (data link).

IPv4 and IPv6 (Or any other IP based protocol) are Layer 3.
Tunnels also work on layers 3-4.

So regardless of what type of technology you have (cable, dsl, ethernet, sattelite) Any IP protocol can work, provided the upstreams have it configured properly and support it to their end-users (And of course, end-users set it up properly).

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
said by openvz_ca:

Also, you're mixing OSI layers. PPPoE (PPP) is layer 2 (data link).

I'm not mixing layers, you got mixed up and misread what I wrote just because I did not bother to spell out what is on which layer.

PPPoE/L2TP which is L2.5 and a form of tunnel that carries L3 protocols over ATM or Ethernet which are L2. That's why PPPoE DSL can natively carry IPv6 regardless of what the telco does.

As for the rest of what I said about IPv4/IPv6 interoperability, what I meant there is that whichever native IP you get, transition technologies that will likely remain deployed for decades to come will allow anyone to reach anything regardless of which IP format they are on as long as auto-configuration data for whichever relevant tunnel is available.