[170016] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: misunderstanding scale
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Ferguson)
Sun Mar 23 12:26:05 2014
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 09:25:38 -0700
From: Paul Ferguson <fergdawgster@mykolab.com>
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
In-Reply-To: <532F0834.9030401@foobar.org>
Cc: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 3/23/2014 9:13 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> yep, agreed - doing ipv6 now is a sensible business proposition.
> But it needs to be tempered with the realisation that for nearly
> all networks, ipv6 is complementary to ipv4 and not a replacement;
> nor will it become a replacement until the time that people feel
> that adding A records to their hostnames is unnecessary.
Absolutely concur -- it's a really hard sell to enterprises in the
U.S. for any compelling reason, at least right now, why they should
take great pains (ad it would be *great* pain) to move to IPv6 while
their IPv4 networks work just fine.
Also, IPv6 introduces some serious security concerns, and until they
are properly addressed, they will be a serious barrier to even
considering it.
$.02,
- - ferg
- --
Paul Ferguson
VP Threat Intelligence, IID
PGP Public Key ID: 0x54DC85B2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iF4EAREIAAYFAlMvCwEACgkQKJasdVTchbJUkwD/eWydkUd7DE7XD9V5ETTENzsa
fjuzzOR5l+t/0wE0EPYBANVVCYSBoFA7XeD5twSGDZcO+nvCK6BDwlRju9W+5iH5
=FBBN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
