[172456] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Morrow)
Thu Jun 19 13:18:01 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <02f701cf8b5b$bb477160$31d65420$@com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 13:14:07 -0400
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
To: Edward Arthurs <earthurs@legacyinmate.com>
Cc: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:13 PM, Edward Arthurs
<earthurs@legacyinmate.com> wrote:
> There are several obstacles to overcome, IMHO
> 1. The companies at the mid size and smaller levels have to invest in newer
> equipment that handles IPV6.
if they have gear made in the last 7yrs it's likely already got the
right bits for v6 support, right?
> 2. The network Admins at the above mentioned companies need to learn IPV6,
> most will want there company to pay the bill for this.
for a large majority of the use cases it's just "configure that other
family on the interface" and done.
> 3. The vendors that make said equipment should lower the cost of said
> equipment to prompt said companies into purchasing said equipment.
the equipment in question does both v4 and v6 ... so why lower pricing?
(also, see 'if made in the last 7 yrs, it's already done and you
probably don't have to upgrade')
> There is a huge difference between IPV4 and IPV6 and there will be a lot of
'huge difference' ... pls quantify this. (unless you just mean colons
instead of periods and letters in the address along with numbers)
