On 11/04/2007, at 11:56 AM, Andrew Ruthven wrote:
On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 10:10 +1200, Nathan Ward wrote:
On 11/04/2007, at 9:10 AM, Andrew Ruthven wrote:
On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 17:00 +1200, Lin Nah wrote:
b. Content
On the matter of content, what if some other organisations (i.e., Apple or Microsoft) were to make just a portion of their music catalogues freely available over IPv6? (With rate limiting and so on in place of course.)
Wait, what? Why would they put their $ in to that project? What do they gain?
Because they want people to start using the new technology in their operating systems? It makes life easier from their support point of views if they can get remote access to peoples machines? Microsoft can see other benefits as well:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsvista/aa905083.aspx
Many of the points there are weak for several reasons, but I'm not going to get in to that debate again here.
In order to bring this in to the realms of beer and operational issues (in order of preference) I'd like to call attention to: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt-to- historic-00.txt and ask if any of you have given thought to what happens when you can't get any v4 addresses for your subscribers anymore.
This is of course where the nay-sayers say that the rate of IPv4 exhaustion is a joke. I'm not one of those, and I've already started experimenting with IPv6. (And for the record, I started experimenting *long* before that experiment website was created!)
Also, the IPv4 Internet certainly isn't going away anytime soon, and there are protocol level proxies that work okay for going between IPv6 and IPv4.
What do you mean by "protocol level"? HTTP proxies and such, or things like NAT-PT? -- Nathan Ward