[182135] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Hotels/Airports with IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mel Beckman)
Fri Jul 10 18:10:58 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 22:08:15 +0000
In-Reply-To: <20150710220258.622AD32B47BD@rock.dv.isc.org>
Cc: North American Network
Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
There is most certainly a cost to IPv6, especially in a large, complex depl=
oyment, where everything requires acceptance testing. And I'm sure you real=
ize that IPv6 only is not an option. I agree that it would have been worth=
the cost, which would have been just a small fraction of the total. The po=
wers that be chose not to incur it now. But we did deploy only IPv6 gear an=
d systems, so it can probably be turned up later for that same incremental =
cost.=20
-mel via cell
> On Jul 10, 2015, at 3:03 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
>=20
>=20
> In message <A24F7CF2-0CD8-4EBA-A211-07BC36988A87@beckman.org>, Mel Beckma=
n writ
> es:
>> Limited municipal budgets is all I can say. IPv6 has a cost, and if they
>> can put it off till later then that's often good politics.
>>=20
>> -mel via cell
>=20
> IPv4 has a cost as well. May as well just go IPv6-only from day one and
> not pay the IPv4 tax at all.
>=20
> The cost difference between providing IPv6 + IPv4 or just IPv4 from
> day 1 should be zero. There should be no re-tooling. You just
> select products that support both initially. It's not like products
> that support both are more expensive all other things being equal.
>=20
> Mark
>=20
>>> On Jul 10, 2015, at 2:42 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> In message
>> <CAL9jLabA5nO6YQ99CRhDgRTHTSB0VgP3GDNeu-VU2-4R_1_pLQ@mail.gmail.com>
>>> , Christopher Morrow writes:
>>>>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
>>>>> I working on a large airport WiFi deployment right now. IPv6 is
>> "allowed =3D
>>>> for in the future" but not configured in the short term. With less
>> than 10,=3D
>>>> 000 ephemeral users, we don't expect users to demand IPv6 until most
>> mobile=3D
>>>> devices and apps come ready to use IPv6 by default.
>>>>=20
>>>> 'we don't expect users to demand ipv6'
>>>>=20
>>>> aside from #nanog folks, who 'demands' ipv6?
>>>>=20
>>>> Don't they actually 'demand' "access to content on the internet" ?
>>>>=20
>>>> Since you seem to have a greenfield deployment, why NOT just put v6 in
>>>> place on day0? retrofitting it is surely going to cost time/materials
>>>> and probably upgrades to gear that could be avoided by doing it in the
>>>> initial installation, right?
>>>=20
>>> +1 and you will most probably see about 50% of the traffic being IPv6 i=
f
>>> you do so. There is lots of IPv6 capable equipment out there just
>> waiting
>>> to see a RA.
>>>=20
>>> Mark
>>> --
>>> Mark Andrews, ISC
>>> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
>>> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
>=20
> --=20
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
