[sg-ops] [sg-hub] Survey on Global IPv6 Penetration 2014

[Tom Paseka]

Hi Chun Sing,

>Maybe it is due to lack of operational v6 experience or concern about the
volume of clueless users flooding their support >line on day 1 of their
business.

In other networks, a staged implementation has been very successful. Using
network at my home (Comcast / AS7922), one day they just enabled IPv6 dual
stack - I didn't notice any change, except some traffic going over IPv6.

For any resources on IPv4 only, CloudFlare can help too!
https://www.cloudflare.com/ipv6 we offer IPv6/IPv4 gateway for websites on
all service level's (including free).  This means if your webserver or
webhost only has IPv4, you can enable IPv6 with single click. Also, the
opposite - if a webserver/host only has IPv6, on CloudFlare it'll be
enabled with IPv4 too.


>On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:51 PM, LIM Fung wrote:

> >NAT44 may still be needed just to allow these users to reach global IPv4
destinations (and they have to deploy RFC1918 >range for their subscribers
since they cannot get hold of enough public address blocks). The other way
of doing it is to >perform NAT64, but not all applications work nicely over
NAT64.

RFC6598 / 100.64.0.0/10 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6598) has been
released for CGN purposes. This is to help with NAT44 situations where the
ISP's "private" space wont overlap with users.

Skype won't work over NAT64, but let's all work together to get services
enabled on IPv6 so there can be seamless transition :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.sgnog.net/pipermail/sgops/attachments/20130724/aa97e6c3/attachment.html>