IPv6 traffic data in Asian networks?

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

On Thursday 22 March 2007 18:05:35 Kevin Loch wrote:
> With the exception of the ARIN website itself,

www.ietf.org has pretty bad reachability too.

On the backbone sides, I have seen problems with TeliaSonera

And then, on the client side, I cannot say FranceTelecom DSL native IPv6 
service was very stable.

And that's for those I have been trying to use.

> I have not seen "much 
> more" transient reachability problems on IPv6.  I have seen IPv6 enabled
> on commercial websites without any problems.  I'm not saying
> it's perfect but it's alot better than "NO NO NO".

It will definitely cause problems to some users, adds extra cost (HW/SW 
updates, maintenance). And it does not bring any advantage to the other ones, 
because HTTP works fine with NATs and proxies.

I am a bit bored with the "If only Google advertised IPv6 on their websites" 
statements that show up every now and then, every here and there. *HTTP* is 
simply NOT a good use-case for switching to IPv6 at the moment. Or well, 
IPv6-only may make sense if you cannot afford an IPv4 address, but dual-stack 
HTTP server really looks useless to me from a business perspective.

Fortunately, there are other application-layer protocols where IPv6 makes a 
lot more sense.

> As for transition mechanisms, sites will find that having their own
> local 6to4 and teredo relays will help alot.

If you do RFC3484, I think it does not matter, IPv4 will be favored over 
6to4<->native or Teredo<->native connections. They really only matter if you 
do not have IPv4 at all on one side (or if the client is legacy non-RFC3484).

-- 
Rémi Denis-Courmont