Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day

[millnert at gmail.com (Martin Millnert)]

Cameron,

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Cameron Byrne <cb.list6 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 5:47 AM, Cameron Byrne <cb.list6 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jun 7, 2011, at 9:59 PM, Martin Millnert wrote:
>>>
>>>> Owen,
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>>>> LSN is required when access providers come across the following two
>>>>> combined constraints:
>>>>>
>>>>> ? ? ? ?1. ? ? ?No more IPv4 addresses to give to customers.
>>>>> ? ? ? ?2. ? ? ?No ability to deploy those customers on IPv6.
>>>>
>>>> 2 has little bearing on need of LSN to access v4. ?Insufficient amount
>>>> of IPv4 addresses => LSN required.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Martin
>>>
>>> No, if you have the option of deploying the customers on IPv6, you don't
>>> need LSN.
>>>
>>> The problem is that until the vast majority of content is dual-stack, you can't
>>> deploy customers on IPv6 without IPv4.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> cough cough NAT64/DNS64 ...
>>
>
> cough DS-lite.
>
> Cameron

AF translators are in the same class of technology as LSN -- to me
they are the same (_NAT_64).

Someone who thinks you will be successful in selling an Internet with
pure ipv6 only access today to consumers must be living on a different
planet.

Cheers,
Martin