[167183] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rob Seastrom)
Tue Dec 3 06:39:18 2013
To: Cutler James R <james.cutler@consultant.com>
From: Rob Seastrom <rs@seastrom.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 06:39:04 -0500
In-Reply-To: <3FFD03CC-CE6A-4486-8921-FC8CD2EA4AD5@consultant.com> (Cutler
James R.'s message of "Tue, 3 Dec 2013 00:56:40 -0500")
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Cutler James R <james.cutler@consultant.com> writes:
> Does this mean we can all get back to solving real IPv6 deployment and operations problems?
I sure hope so. :)
> I certainly hope you all can finally see which is the better business choice between:
>
> 1. Using up to around 10% of IPv6 space to make our network operations simpler for the next twenty years or more.
You're high by more than an order of magnitude. Inasmuch as I don't
hail from Chicago, I'm not suggesting actually issuing addresses to
people who are dead (Eric's final datapoint).
> 2. Continuing to spend time and money on micromanagement of addressing rather than real customer needs.
>
> One who cannot properly understand the business decision here perhaps should not be debating network policies.
>
> "Strongly worded letter to follow."
Indeed.
-r
