[167626] in North American Network Operators' Group

home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post

Re: turning on comcast v6

daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sat Dec 21 15:58:12 2013

From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHd7N8NoFhBRBEGj3+ABiUM0VDFJhT3S7SeBFLxUmbHtSmdP8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 12:54:07 -0800
To: Eric Oosting <eric.oosting@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog2 <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org


On Dec 20, 2013, at 14:44 , Eric Oosting <eric.oosting@gmail.com> wrote:

>=20
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Matthew Huff <mhuff@ox.com> wrote:
> Owen,
>=20
> Have you ever worked in a corporate environment? Replacing equipment =
can be a 5-7 year window and has to be justified and budgeted. Replacing =
a piece of equipment because it's an incomplete IPv6 implementation =
(which has changed considerably as it has been deployed), isn't =
feasible.
>=20
> Not to put words in Owen's mouth, but let me explain how I interpret =
what he was saying: Vote with your feet.
>=20
> It's simple ... maybe you can't replace everything in your network =
that doesn't support IPv6, ( I wish we all had that kind of =
discretionary budgets) but you can still base purchasing decisions on =
IPv6 support, and by and large, that isn't happening. Enterprise =
purchasing just isn't driven by IPv6 features ... if anything, its a =
check box feature for vendors and ignored by decision makers.
>=20
> Until the enterprise says to the widget salesperson: "i'm not buying =
this until and unless you truly commit to supporting IPv6" we're stuck =
where we are.
>=20
> We don't necessarily need you to replace everything in your network =
that doesn't support it today, we need you to not put a single thing in =
your network new, or used, that doesn't. Believe me, the vendors will =
get the message and suddenly even the legacy stuff will start to be =
fixed. Remember what a PITA it was to get novel to support IPv4? They =
didn't do it until they had to.
>=20
> -e
> =20
Absolutely correct interpretation of my statement.

Owen


home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post