[147415] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Sad IPv4 story?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Fri Dec 9 16:13:59 2011
To: Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 09 Dec 2011 14:47:06 CST."
<0FCEFA7E-C7E6-4AEC-B72C-755CF3228E8E@queuefull.net>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 16:12:21 -0500
Cc: NANOG Operators Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1323465141_2873P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 14:47:06 CST, Benson Schliesser said:
> +1 to Fred's comments. Hopefully, the existence of an open IPv4 address
> market will help avoid some of the worst. (At least for a while, until
> the rising prices get too high for a competitive environment. And maybe
> by then the price of IPv4 addresses will have made IPv6 deployment a
> much more obvious choice to reluctant CFO-types.)
I suspect the opposite is in fact true - if there is an open market, many sites
will continue deluding themselves and make the end game that much more painful.
If you haven't been able to sell the CFO types on the need to deploy IPv6 *yet*
(consider that you *should* have been specifying "Ipv6-ready" on capex for at
least 4-5 years already, so most of the gear on the floor should be ready to
go), you're going to be *screwed* when you finally get moving. Among other
things, all the *good* IPv6 experts will already have found good gigs, and it's
gonna either take a bigger paycheck to headhunt one, or you'll be stuck with
the dregs of the market (either way, it will cost you more).
--==_Exmh_1323465141_2873P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFO4nm1cC3lWbTT17ARAt3iAJ9Db3VOmdN/xeb2HF9FNBj67B6o9gCeMKl2
rqRlflaja8KWMCyvC7jKGFg=
=Glun
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1323465141_2873P--
