North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: /8 end user assignment?
- From: Christopher L. Morrow
- Date: Thu Aug 04 19:30:29 2005
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Steve Feldman wrote:
> > I meant to ask this at a nanog or this IETF... why don't some of the
> > larger content providers (google, msn, yahoo, to name 3 examples) put AAAA
> > records in for their maint content pieces? why don't they get v6
> > connectivity from their providers (that offer such services) ? There are
> > starting to be more and more folks with v6 connectivity... it'd be
> > interesting as a way to drive usage on v6, eh?
> (I work for a not-quite-as-large content player. These are my own
> opinions, but this is what I'd tell my empolyer if they asked.)
> - We can't get provider-independent IPv6 space (without pretending
> to be a service provider.)
oh, and multi-6/shim6 isn't going to help you do PA space and multihome?
really? it isn't? hmm, time to get vocal i suppose, eh?
> - None of our transit providers appear to provide IPv6 transit.
> Or if they do, they keep it pretty quiet. (Does UUNET?)
we do, verio does, sprint does... at&t might (my memory is dim there,
sorry) L3 does. Some is more 'interim' tunnel based access unless you are
in/near the right place on the respective map/net... others are 'native'
(verio comes to mind in this regard)
> - Most of our content is delivered via load balancer hardware
> that would also need to support IPv6. Last time I checked,
> it didn't.
will the v6 access really be enough to require LB's? or are they there for
other reasons (global lb for content close to customers, regionalized
content) perhaps reasons which would matter 'less' in an initial v6 world
where you were getting the lb's fixed by their vendor? (or finding a
vendor that supports v6 lb?)
> - There are (perceived to be) more important things to spend
> our limited resources on.
ah, the ever popular: "Waiting for the killer application" again... sure,
I understand this.