[186822] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Jan 5 03:45:13 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANjVB-j5JCk-4sVUtfJj=aj-_QFvQUPmiHmObZZ1QkA7cMRF7w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 00:43:05 -0800
To: George Metz <george.metz@gmail.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> On Jan 4, 2016, at 20:27 , George Metz <george.metz@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 9:37 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
>=20
>> the more interesting question to me is: what can we, ops and ietf, do
>> to make it operationally and financially easier for providers and
>> enterprises to go to ipv6 instead of ipv4 nat? carrot not stick.
>>=20
>> randy
>>=20
>=20
> The problem is, the only way to make it easier for providers and
> enterprises to switch is to make it less scary looking and less =
complicated
> sounding. That door closed when it was decided to go with hex and =
128-bit
> numbering. *I* know it's not nearly as bad as it seems and why it was =
done,
> and their network folks by and large know it's not as bad as it seems, =
but
> the people making the decisions to spend large sums of money upgrading
> stuff that works just fine thank-you-very-much are looking at it and =
saying
> "Ye gods... I sort of understand what IP means but that looks like an =
alien
> language!"
>=20
> At which point the ugly duckling gets tossed out on it's ear before it =
has
> a chance to become a swan.
I haven=E2=80=99t been involved in a single executive briefing where hex =
or the length
of the addresses came up as an issue.
This is a total red herring.
Decision makers aren=E2=80=99t paying attention to what the addresses =
look like. Most of
them likely wouldn=E2=80=99t recognize an IPv4 address if you showed =
them one.
Owen
