On 18-Feb-2007, at 16:57, joshua sahala wrote:
Why are you reliant on the telcos to move to IPv6?
Sure they could play the 6-to-4 game, but that just highlights one problem with v6: there no effective migration path from v4 to v6... Besides, 6-to-4 looks a lot like NAT, and it is almost universally agreed that NAT is teh suck
You're confused about what 6to4 is. 6to4 is an automatic tunnelling mechanism which involves no address translation. Manually-configured tunnels similarly involve no address translation.
In order to offer native v6 content, a content provider will need an upstream intartubes provider...but since there is no (effective) end-site multi-homing in IPv6, they can only pick one provider, so they have to hope that it is a good one [tm]...
There are two working options for multi-homing in IPv6 today: 1. Obtain PI IPv6 space, and do what you do with IPv4 PI space. This option is open to all ISPs, per current APNIC policies. This doesn't apply to end-sites in the APNIC region, though (ARIN policies differ), which is what you're talking about. I mention it for completeness. 2. Take one PA assignment from each of your upstreams, assign an address from each of those PA blocks to each customer, and let the customers decide which address to use. This is the current IETF- blessed multihoming approach. There work going on at the IETF to provide additional multihoming mechanisms, principally because operators were underwhelmed with (2) above, and because there are scaling concerns with (1). However, I don't think it's accurate to say that there's no effective end-site multi-homing in IPv6. Joe