Thank you for the reply.
I think there should be a platform where IPv4 users and IPv6 users can interface. If this link is missing then there will be problem.
Otueneh
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Stefan Winter <stefan.winter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello,
That message is quite clear, isn't it? You use an Internet Service
> "You appear to be able to browse the IPv4 Internet only. You will not
> be able to reach IPv6-only sites."
>
> Please can some one visit http://test-ipv6.com/# and give me more
> explanation on the displayed result?
Provider which only supplies you with IPv4 connectivity. If you want to
visit a website which only supports IPv6, it will not work.
The test website can be reached on both IPv4 and IPv6. So it can tell
you: you came here via IPv4, and didn't manage to get here via IPv6. So
there is no working IPv6 for you.
Stefan
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Otunte Otueneh
> ISOC Nigeria Chapter
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Stefan Winter
> > Ietf@xxxxxxxx <mailto:Ietf@xxxxxxxx>> <stefan.winter@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:stefan.winter@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> >> ... when the support people for a fairly well-established telco
> >> haven't even heard of IPv6, it's hard to believe that it's going
> >> to be available anytime soon.
> >> [multiple people essentially reporting the same]
> >> At this point in time $ISP has no immediate plans for
> implementation.
> > I would say it's about time reality finally settles in.
>
> My reality is that I switched to an ISP who openly announced
> native IPv6
> support in their offering in 2007. Up and running since then, and
> when I
> had trouble setting up the IPCP+IP6CP in the same PPP channel in
> IOS, I
> wrote them an email on a Saturday, and got a config snippet back
> an hour
> later, as part of their standard customer service. That ISP operates
> nation-wide and uses IPv6 as a marketing instrument to get techies to
> subscribe. For a price of converted 15 USD per month. That's in
> Germany
> though. Apparently, realities differ depending on where you are.
>
> Greetings,
>
> Stefan Winter
>
> >
> >> Keith Moore wrote:
> >> Meanwhile, 6to4 continues to work just fine for me.
> >> So please explain again why it isn't premature to
> >> discourage a valuable transition mechanism?
> > On that one I agree with Keith; where's the rush? Although
> imperfect,
> > 6to4 was an obvious path and its demise would be the failure of the
> > IETF, following a long list of things that have been killed
> prematurely.
> >
> >
> >> Ned wrote:
> >> Anyone who doesn't believe we have a major marketing
> >> problem here isn't paying attention.
> > Hmm that is a point of view. You think you have a solution (IPv6) to
> > what you perceive to be a problem (shortage of IPv4 addresses).
> >
> > However, some ISPs (and some other companies) do not consider it a
> > problem, but a blessing. What the IPv4 shortage does is that it
> prevents
> > new large players to enter the field, while allowing existing
> players to
> > continue to do business as usual.
> >
> > As the shortage as been predicted for a decade, some (not all) have
> > stockpiled addresses and are now reaping the benefits. In
> business, this
> > situation is worth solid gold: it's called a monopoly. I'm fat and
> > happy, and I want it to continue. In this case, it's even better:
> > companies who benefit from it can argue that they are not the
> ones who
> > created the monopoly, it was a built-in limitation of the system as
> > created.
> >
> > Some may not like the parallel, but we have failed the IPv6
> migration
> > the same way we have failed the war on drugs. A while ago, there was
> > this thing called the Tier-1 cartel. As originally designed, a very
> > elusive club, with almost no way in and absolutely no tears when a
> > member gets de-peered.
> >
> > Some have said that the cartel has failed as a system (due to a
> large
> > number of multilateral peering agreements and other factors).
> But now
> > what we have is a much larger number of largely unorganized but
> sharing
> > the same goals entities: those who already have IPv4 addresses. It's
> > even worse.
> >
> > When a resource becomes scare or limited, the big picture is not how
> > much of it is available, or how much it costs. The big picture
> is how
> > much of the market one does control. Now we are in the situation
> where
> > everyone and their sister own a piece of the pie, and as long as the
> > price of the pie keeps going up, they're going to cling to it.
> >
> >
> > On top of the marketing problem you mentioned, you have a bigger
> one:
> > there are many, many organizations out there that, even if you
> paid them
> > to deploy IPv6, would not. Because IPv6 is a territorial threat
> to them.
> >
> > While the new or wannabe players would like the extra address
> space, the
> > sad truth is that the already establish players don't like newly
> open
> > spaces and prefer the territory control that comes with owning a
> piece
> > of a limited land space.
> >
> > Michel.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf mailing list
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf> Ietf@xxxxxxxx <mailto:Ietf@xxxxxxxx>
>
>
> --
> Stefan WINTER
> Ingenieur de Recherche
> Fondation RESTENA - Réseau Téléinformatique de l'Education
> Nationale et de la Recherche
> 6, rue Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi
> L-1359 Luxembourg
>
> Tel: +352 424409 1
> Fax: +352 422473
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
>
--
Stefan WINTER
Ingenieur de Recherche
Fondation RESTENA - Réseau Téléinformatique de l'Education Nationale et de la Recherche
6, rue Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi
L-1359 Luxembourg
Tel: +352 424409 1
Fax: +352 422473
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf