On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Why are you trying to make life harder for developers of IPv6 applications? There's no reason at all that an application developer should have to set up a special-purpose network just to test an IPv6 application.
No, we're trying to make their lives easier, by suggesting they use something that actually *works*.
Realistic testing of applications needs to be done on real networks, or a least an approximation to real networks. Testing IPv6 using 6to4 over public IPv4 obviously isn't perfect, but it's a hell of a lot more realistic than setting up a lab network and confining one's testing to that.
So use a tunnel broker.
You're missing something. I can connect directly from my mobile laptop to a machine in my home network using 6to4.
Really? From where? On none of the networks my laptop connects to do I get a public IPv4 address. Some of them do give me have native IPv6 or manually-tunneled IPv6 though.
We can disagree about the meaning of the word "widespread", but the practical fact is that you can't expect people to give up something that works for them until you can provide them something that works better for them. "Available to 50% of Internet service customers" is equivalent to a very small percent probability of native connectivity being able to replace 6to4 connectivity in a scenario where 6to4 is currently working. And the more hosts involved, the smaller that probability is.
You cannot claim that 6to4 is "working" when there is data that shows that it has a 20% failure rate. If we had that sort of connectivity in IPv4, we wouldn't have an Internet.
Existing "content providers" are not going to drive adoption of IPv6. They're going to follow it.
Nope. Look at World IPv6 day. If you look at the list of participaints, I'd say that probably more than 10% of Internet content, either by bits or by query volume, is ready for IPv6 now. Our data shows that access is at 0.3%. So you could say that in fact content *is* driving adoption of IPv6. We just need to get unreliable tunneled connectivity out of the way so we can turn it on for real.
Web and email will be the last applications to migrate.
Um, no. See above.
WEG> Well, it'd be more harmful if there weren't alternatives.There aren't any good ones. Teredo and configured tunnels are worse in many ways; though they each have their use cases.
Actually, configured tunnels are much better. They have a much lower failure rate and lower latency. We published data that shows the latency impact in our PAM 2009 paper.
Regards,
Lorenzo
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf