Search RPD Archives
[rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space
mainanoa at gmail.com
Thu Jun 12 11:25:23 UTC 2014
I still stick to my argument that the phrase "IPv6 Content "is misleading
IMHO, .... In the v4 world, we never had such language as IPv4 content, we
just knew we needed to access our applications and content across the
Perhaps, we can champion a campaign to de-campaigner the phrase...I mean,
what has content seated on Amazon, Facebook, Google the whole 9 yards
across the "www" got to do with v4 or v6 transport mechanism????? ...
I say, they should enable the protocol and let version 6 flow...
On 12 June 2014 14:03, John Hay <jhay at meraka.org.za> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 12:58:03PM +0300, Noah Maina wrote:
> > "IPv6 Content" is a mis-leading phrase and we as netizens should refrain
> > from using it..
> > The servers have Ethernet ports. The OS's that run on them support both
> > and v6 protocols. The applications aka Content seats at layer above 2 and
> > 3.... Content providers choose to only enable a single protocol across
> > wire, IPv4 and ignore the other sweet one IPv6.
> > So in a nutshell, if both protocols could be preconfigure on the gate go,
> > then same content would be accessible via both protocols.
> > So please, lets drop this phrase, "There is no IPv6 Content"
> Well I think it comes from this whole chicken and egg issue. Content guys
> said, there is no user requirement for IPv6, and the users (and their ISPs)
> said, the content is not available via IPv6... And for a long time both
> sides did nothing. And even now a lot of them try to find reasons to keep
> doing nothing.
> So if you do not like "IPv6 Content", what should we use? "Content is
> available via IPv6 too"? And later when IPv6 only sites become online,
> "IPv6 only content"?
> I think some form of "IPv6 Content" is usefull because you can take that
> to bean counters as motivation to roll IPv6 out in your network.
> > Noah
> > On 12 June 2014 12:24, Guy Antony Halse <G.halse at ru.ac.za> wrote:
> > > On Wed 2014-06-11 (19:47), John Hay wrote:
> > > > More than a third of our (Meraka) internet traffic is already IPv6.
> > >
> > > Our stats are roughly similar -- for anyone who still believes that
> > > isn't any IPv6 content out there, http://imgur.com/a/PLQje shows the
> > > respective graphs from one of our edge routers a rew minutes ago. And
> > > don't dual stack our residences yet...
> > >
> > > More importantly, at least in South Africa, the IPv6 content is here
> > >
> > > guy at walrus:~$ traceroute6 www.google.co.za
> > > traceroute6 to www.google.co.za (2c0f:fb50:4002:800::101f) from
> > > 2001:4200:1010:1058:210:18ff:fe2d:87f9, 64 hops max, 12 byte packets
> > > 1 struben.gw.ru.ac.za 1.014 ms 0.977 ms 0.819 ms
> > > 2 strubencore-maincampus-0.net.ru.ac.za 0.660 ms 0.661 ms 0.664
> > > 3 strubenedge-strubencore.net.ru.ac.za 0.832 ms 0.847 ms 0.822
> > > 4 tenet-strubenedge.net.ru.ac.za 1.290 ms 1.292 ms 1.290 ms
> > > [...]
> > > 15 2001:4860:0:1::623 40.944 ms 40.949 ms 40.925 ms
> > > 16 2c0f:fb50:4002:800::17 40.377 ms
> > >
> > > - Guy
> > > --
> > > Manager: Systems, I&TS Division, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South
> > > Africa
> > > Email: G.Halse at ru.ac.za Web: http://mombe.org/ IRC:
> > > rm-rf at irc.atrum.org
> > > *** ANSI Standard Disclaimer ***
> > > J.A.P.H
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rpd mailing list
> > > rpd at afrinic.net
> > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rpd mailing list
> > rpd at afrinic.net
> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
> John Hay -- jhay at meraka.csir.co.za / jhay at meraka.org.za
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD