[rpd] A typical conversation with a service provider on v6

[Seun Ojedeji]

Hello Mark,

On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> wrote:

> On Monday, June 16, 2014 03:03:36 PM Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>
> > But we are already assuming there is such v6 specific
> > service as that is what is used as a motivation to move.
>
> I'm not sure of any IPv6-only services that are not used expressly to
> encourage IPv6 take-up, but it is feasible to assume that as more and more
> of the remaining IPv4 space is allocated from RIR's to their members, new
> online resources are going to be on IPv6 only.
>

I am sure anyone would agree with this, the reality however is that the
margin for now is quite wide and ISPs who are meant to reduce the distance
to getting to such promise land (where v6 networks is > v4) are not moving.

>
> > A content provider does not need to worry about moving
> > to v6 because a content provider is just a glorified
> > enduser.
>
> Think again.
>
> If you take Facebook, for example, it is a well-known fact that they have
> moved nearly 98% of their internal (east-to- west server-to-server
> communications) to IPv6.
>

And that is my point; end users are ready to receive v4 or v6 (just like
facebook servers nodes are ready) and so they don't have anything to worry
about. Those who need to worry (and who are actually not) are the "network
service providers". What we find now is that end-users are the ones trying
to move the ISP which should actually be the other way round. On a lighter
note, i also don't see facebook going native v6 soon because no content
provider wants to take the frog jump especially when he knows that the
landing ground is not as soft with v6 users ;)

>
> > By folks I meant the ISPs. We are saying customers will
> > move the ISPs however at the same time, we both know
> > that customers don't really care about the numbers but
> > about the service. ;)
>
> And that is why customers will switch to ISP's who have an IPv6 solution,
> not because of IPv6, but because they can get connectivity to much (or all)
> of the Internet.
>

I think we are in sync ;)

>
> > Maybe v6 does not need the much hype afterall.
>
> Yes and no, actually.
>
> It matters in the operator community to maintain growth of
> the Internet. The Internet is still a mesh of autonomous
> systems, after all.
>
> Mmm....i think it does, so can you at Seacom decide as a matter of policy
not to peer with provider that does not also provide v6?


> It does not matter much to simple customers (who are the majority) because
> all their want is Twitter. And make no mistake, they will find someone who
> can give it to them, one way or the other.
>

+1 to make it worse, they will even find someone to give v6 content access
to them while they still run behind their NATed v4

Cheers!

>
> Mark.
>



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20140616/afb706dd/attachment.html>