[136160] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Tue Feb 1 16:11:03 2011
To: Paul Graydon <paul@paulgraydon.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 01 Feb 2011 10:27:45 -1000."
<4D486CC1.1020602@paulgraydon.co.uk>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 16:08:32 -0500
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1296594512_4968P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 10:27:45 -1000, Paul Graydon said:
> We're still using v4 because we can, because there has been no
> compelling business case to justify spending time on something that
> isn't necessary just right now, especially given the not insignificant
> changes between v4 and v6. There is nothing on line that isn't
> accessible over IPv4 so there has been no critical app outside the
> infrastructure to spur such changes yet either.
And if you're not working on deploying IPv6 now, will you be able to
survive the delay when something critical *does* come online and you
need 18 months or whatever to deploy?
Heck - we started deploying in Feb 1997 or so, and as I write this, MRTG is
reporting that about 5% of our off-campus traffic is via IPv6 - probably due to
the fact that we hit Google and Youtube that way. But we *still* have gear and
software that doesn't play nice (though almost all of that is our own internal
headaches and not very visible to end users - their connectivity works).
--==_Exmh_1296594512_4968P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFNSHZQcC3lWbTT17ARAtRYAJ9xi3JV0mOABDKJwF6oY1maHpMGJwCggFqU
wmhZL/TslVa7rdpFZbHP0GA=
=NYsZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1296594512_4968P--
