Skype 8 does not support ipv6

[Cameron Byrne]

On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Pim van Pelt <pim at ipng.nl> wrote:
> Hoi,
>
> 2012/11/2 Cameron Byrne <cb.list6 at gmail.com>:
>> I am a generally very pro "let the market deside", but this is clearly a
>> market failure and i think we need more "official" pressure brought to
>> Microsoft on this issue. Skype is too big to fail :(
> I'm interested to learn why you think that? (a) that the market
> failed, and (b) that skype is too big to fail.

A.  Well, simply put, the market forces that encourage only near-term
returns deferred IPv6 deployment in most places until after IANA ran
out of address.  This results in a less efficient (NAT444, MAP, NAT64,
DS-lite, 464XLAT, 6to4-PMP, ...) and more costly upgrades than what a
substantial dual-stack deployment in 2005 would have yielded (IPv6 e2e
in 2010?).  But, this is a rabbit hole that i would rather not go
down.   The market forces will, in the end, force IPv6 deployment for
networks and apps.

B.  Regarding too big to fail, Skype accounts for 33% of all long
distance minutes, that is quite a concentration of global business
http://gigaom.com/2012/09/03/happy-birthday-skype-in-9-years-you-changed-telecom/.
 It is also listed in the "top 10 free" apps in the Android market. If
their core differentiation is IPv4 NAT traversal, then perhaps they do
not want IPv6 to be deployed.  Obviously, various entities stand to
profit from the lack of efficient transition to IPv6.  But, i am not
claiming this is Microsoft's motives.  In fact, Microsoft is very
strong in many ways with IPv6 including being a major part of "World
IPv6 Launch" and solid deployments in Win7.



> There are other players on the market (including large ones), who may
> get a competitive edge by offering service over IPv6, or offering
> service in a thin client (say a web browser), or offering better voice
> or video quality.
>

Perhaps, in time.  My point is that Skype's failure to support IPv6
transfers risk and cost (CGN) to carriers who might rather do a simple
business based on moving bits. And, not supporting a "top download" in
the Apple and Android app market is not a business reality for network
operators (hence too big to fail).  Even NAT444 is cheaper than
answering support calls to tell customers that Skype is not an option
on this network.

I think the folks behind RIPE 501 might be able to help drive
priorities for Microsoft in this space.

CB

>
> --
> Pim van Pelt <pim at ipng.nl>
> PBVP1-RIPE - http://www.ipng.nl/