Joe Abley wrote:
On 16-Feb-2007, at 17:00, Nathan Ward wrote:
End-to-end IP connectivity is so passe.
But it's arguably what allowed the Internet to grow and flourish. If the network controls the applications that users can deploy, then either the provider will be permanently playing catch-up, the user will be permanently disappointed, or (if the disease is sufficiently widespread) people will stop dreaming up new applications for users to run, and will instead concentrate on packages they can sell to carriers and ISPs. This all starts to sound a bit like the telco network.
My cellphone supports all kinds of weird and wacky features. Most of which I can't use because my cellphone provider doesn't provide the server side components. I can't even point it at my own server somewhere out on the Internet somewhere because the specifications aren't freely available and thus afaik theres no known implementations available for less than a few brazillion dollars.
So, here's another question. Who has played with Windows Vista sufficiently to have a good handle on the performance implications of users doing things like peer-to-peer name resolution over 6to4/ Teredo? Does this provide an incentive for ISPs to provide better v6 performance in order to win customers, or is it something that the helpdesks of the world will swiftly direct customers to disable?
I've not played with vista directly, but I have experimented with 6to4 and Teredo. Both are reliant on decent anycast gateways, which would be fairly easy for ISP's to deploy within their networks. Which gateway we see from New Zealand often varies but it's not unusual for it to be in Europe somewhere which is likely to cause excessive latency increases to native IPv6 sites. Of course 6to4 to 6to4 and teredo to teredo routes follow the same route as the IPv4 Internet, and the overhead is precisely 20 bytes per packet.