[170166] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: misunderstanding scale
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Mar 24 21:32:27 2014
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <532DC580.8060901@foobar.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 17:26:56 -0700
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Cc: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mar 22, 2014, at 10:16 AM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
> On 22/03/2014 16:29, Doug Barton wrote:
>> It is a mistake to believe that the only reason to add IPv6 to your =
network
>> is size. Adding IPv6 to your network _now_ is the right decision =
because at
>> some point in the not-too-distant future it will be the dominant =
network
>> technology, and you don't want to get left behind.
>=20
> not wanting to rain on anyone's parade, but people have been claiming =
this
> since the days of IPng. Granted, we're a couple of years after IANA =
runout
> and two RIRs are also in post-runout phase, but the level of pain
> associated with continued deployment of ipv4-only services is still =
nowhere
> near the point that ipv6 can be considered a viable alternative.
>=20
> Nick
>=20
True. However, if you wait until that point to start deploying IPv6, =
you=92re in for a LOT of pain during that protracted emergency =
transition phase you just volunteered for.
OTOH, if you implement IPv6 in parallel to your IPv4 from this point =
forward, there=92s very little additional pain and retrofitting your =
IPv4 can proceed at some pace until complete. After that, you can turn =
off IPv4 as soon as you don=92t need it any more and enjoy the show =
while everyone else plays catchup.
Owen
