|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> In-Reply-To: <55A74525.8030405@matthew.at> Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 23:54:03 -0700 To: Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org > On Jul 15, 2015, at 22:46 , Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> = wrote: >=20 >=20 >=20 > On 7/15/15 7:32 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: >>=20 >>=20 >> Go to any business with hardware that is 3-5 years old in its IT >> infrastructure and devices ranging from PCs running XP to the random >> consumer gear people bring in (cameras, printers, tablets, etc.) and = see >> how easy it is to get everything talking on an IPv6-only (no IPv4 at >> all) network... including using IPv6 to do automatic updates and all = the >> other pieces that need to work. We're nowhere near ready for that. >> None of which is the fault of the protocol. Blame the equipement = vendors >> for being negligent. >>=20 >=20 > I could blame the people doing IT in those environments too, but that = doesn't make it so that nobody needs IPv4 addresses to deploy servers to = keep talking to these folks. >=20 > Matthew Kaufman Need is not the problem. Availability is a problem now. It=92s going to = be a more difficult problem in the future. The sooner we get to where they are using IPv6 even if they=92re just = dual-stacked, the sooner availability becomes less of a problem due to = the elimination of need. Since availability isn=92t going to get better, really, the only option = to make the situation better is to eliminate need. The best way to = eliminate need for IPv4 is IPv6. It=92s really as simple as that. Owen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |