North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]

  • From: Jeroen Massar
  • Date: Thu Nov 18 11:14:25 2004 
On Thu, 2004-11-18 at 10:29 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 09:18:22 EST, Christian Kuhtz said:
> 
> > So, again, somebody says they're selling it.. And without wanting to sound
> > like a flame.. what volume of native, non-tunnel IPv6 traffic do you see and
> > what applications is it?  Could you throw those of us a bone who are still
> > scratching our heads as to what business cases support this? ;)
> 
> The point is that Randy was wrong when he said there weren't any v6 ISPs
> in 2002, because at least some were doing it a year before that.
> 
> For *THAT* matter, I've heard a lot of people over on the main IETF list
> in the last week or so stating that SMTP is only 1-2% of many places' total
> bandwidth usage.  So why don't we all just cut *THAT* off because there's
> no business case to support *THAT* either? :)

The business case of about 80% of the ISP's is Pr0n & W4R3z (or what
spelling is 'in' this year?)

But.... it is not illegal to make adverts for say "Downloading the
newest movies over a cool 8mbit DSL line". But downloading it itself is
of course. Might be analogous to providing a busservice to the crack
dealers mansion.

In short.... when those porn providers join the boat with the warez
providers IPv6 will have a lot more traffic for sure.

Operational part: most (all?) of the IETF servers don't support IPv6,
guess where they are located ;)

Greets,
 Jeroen

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part