[189573] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 is better than ipv4
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mike Hammett)
Thu Jun 2 13:41:00 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 12:38:46 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net>
Cc: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAL9jLaZ2V6gCZteoNKK-uCEeaQk_3YKdCUFXZax=hAs9nFRT1A@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I would be surprised if more than 10% - 20% of networks have received effec=
tive marketing on IPv6.=20
Look at how many network operators that don't "get" basic network security =
alerts like "There is a long since patched vulnerability being actively exp=
loited on the Internet right now. Your equipment will reset to default in 1=
8.5 hours of infection. Please patch now." Equipment resetting to default i=
s a metric crap ton more serious than IPv6 implementation and people don't =
take that seriously.=20
Think outside of the NANOG bubble.=20
(I *REALLY* hate the way this list replies to the individual and not the li=
st... and doesn't have a bracketed name in the subject.)=20
-----=20
Mike Hammett=20
Intelligent Computing Solutions=20
http://www.ics-il.com=20
Midwest-IX=20
http://www.midwest-ix.com=20
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>=20
To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net>=20
Cc: "nanog list" <nanog@nanog.org>=20
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2016 12:31:43 PM=20
Subject: Re: IPv6 is better than ipv4=20
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Mike Hammett < nanog@ics-il.net > wrote:=20
Yes.=20
REALLY??? I mean REALLY? people that operate networks haven't haven't had b=
eaten into their heads:=20
1) cgn is expensive=20
2) there is no more ipv4 (not large amounts for large deployments of new th=
ingies)=20
3) there really isn't much else except the internet for global networking a=
nd reachabilty=20
4) ipv6 'works' on almost all gear you'd deploy in your network=20
and content side folks haven't had beaten into their heads:=20
1) ipv6 is where the network is going, do it now so you aren't caught with =
your pants (proverbial!) down=20
2) more and more customers are going to have ipv6 and not NAT'd ipv4... you=
can better target, better identify and better service v6 vs v4 users=E2=80=
=8B.=20
3) adding ipv6 transport really SHOULD be as simple as adding a AAAA=20
I figure at this point, in 2016, the reasons aren't "marketing" but either:=
=20
a) turning the ship is hard (vz's continual lack of v6 on wireline services=
...)=20
b) can't spend the opex/capex while keeping the current ship afloat=20
c) meh=20
I can't see that 'marketing' is really going to matter... I mean, if you ha=
ven't gotten the message now:=20
http://i.imgur.com/8vZOU0T.gif=20
<blockquote>
-----=20
Mike Hammett=20
Intelligent Computing Solutions=20
http://www.ics-il.com=20
Midwest-IX=20
http://www.midwest-ix.com=20
----- Original Message -----=20
From: "Christopher Morrow" < morrowc.lists@gmail.com >=20
To: "Daniel Corbe" < dcorbe@hammerfiber.com >=20
Cc: nanog@nanog.org=20
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2016 11:41:33 AM=20
Subject: Re: IPv6 is better than ipv4=20
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Daniel Corbe < dcorbe@hammerfiber.com >=20
wrote:=20
> Maybe we should let people believe that IPv6 is faster than IPv4 even if=
=20
> objectively that isn=E2=80=99t true. Perhaps that will help speed along t=
he=20
> adoption process.=20
do we REALLY think it's still just /marketing problem/ that keeps v6=20
deployment on the slow-boat?=20
</blockquote>
