[189569] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 is better than ipv4
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ca By)
Thu Jun 2 12:55:44 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CAL9jLaZBa2eWb3DTnA98rOCtir45ptysyVWCENceahJ8rJSfgw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 09:55:40 -0700
From: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Thursday, June 2, 2016, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Daniel Corbe <dcorbe@hammerfiber.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dcorbe@hammerfiber.com');>> wrote:
>
>> Maybe we should let people believe that IPv6 is faster than IPv4 even if
>> objectively that isn=E2=80=99t true. Perhaps that will help speed along=
the
>> adoption process.
>
>
> =E2=80=8Bdo we REALLY think it's still just /marketing problem/ that keep=
s v6
> deployment on the slow-boat?=E2=80=8B
>
>
YMMV, but the majority of my customers are ipv6. And for those customers
with ipv6, 73% of their traffic is e2e IPv6.
I agree that there are many dark corners of Santa Cruz without IPv6, but
the story is: the whales of content and eyeballs are on IPv6, and it is
cheaper (no cgn) and faster (RUM data) than the ipv4 alternative.
Does it really matter what single digit % of Alexa 1M has a AAAA?
