[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
IPv6 is on the marketers radar
On Feb 13, 2011, at 1:33 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>, "Lee Howard" writes:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Geert Bosch [mailto:bosch at adacore.com]
>>> Honestly, I can't quite see the big deal for home users. I'm using
>>> an Apple Airport Extreme, and setting it up with a IPv6 tunnel from
>> $150? That's a high-powered device compared to most home gateways.
>>> HE was quite straightforward. Sure, I don't expect the average user
>>> to go through these steps, but they could easily be automated and
>>> rolled out as part of a firmware update (which is a routine matter
>> Yes, if the ISP provided the gateway. In many markets, they don't.
>> Even if they start now, they would have to convince every customer
>> to swap routers. And find the capital to pay for them. And have a
>> system for updating the firmware and configurations of those
>> devices. Or maybe the customer's going to have to buy a new
>> gateway, when the one they have is still functioning, and might
>> even be brand new.
>>> the foreseeable future, people will have (NATed or not) IPv4
>>> connectivity, so content providers are fine without IPv6.
>> Depends on the content. Large-scale NAT is bad for you if you
>> depend on IP geo-location, or use anti-DDOS measures to limit
>> number of connections or bits from a single IP address, or use
>> IP address to report abuse, or blacklist IP addresses, or log the
>> user's IP address, or try to enforce copyright by reporting IP
>> addresses of violators, or rate-limit outbound data per address,
>> or record unique visitors by IP address.
>> It might also increase latency, but probably not so much that
>> you'd panic.
> And a lot of that depends upon how you implement LSN.
> * LSN per pop or a uber mega LSN?
> * How many customers per address? 2 or 200?
Most LSNs will probably be regional collections of LSN boxes
that are (somewhat randomly) load balanced.