[189576] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 is better than ipv4
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Herrin)
Thu Jun 2 14:58:23 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
X-Really-To: <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <138390613.4128.1464887876094.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck>
From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 14:57:54 -0400
To: Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
>> do we REALLY think it's still just /marketing problem/ that keeps v6
>> deployment on the slow-boat?
> Yes.
I have a confession: I don't use IPv6.
I don't use IPv6 at home because:
1. My Verizon FiOS link does not support IPv6.
2. My Cox Cable Internet link does not support IPv6.
3. The colo I tunnel to in order to announce my addresses via BGP does
not support IPv6.
4. IPv6 does not offer me enough value to pony up the $500 initial and
$100/year ARIN fees I would have to pay in order to have parity with
my IPv4 installation, at least not until my other vendors support it.
I don't use IPv6 at work because:
1. My employer moved half of everything to the Amazon cloud. AWS does
not support IPv6.
2. My employer moved the other half of everything to various software
as a service vendors, none of whom implement IPv6.
Marketing problem? If it won't work with -any- of the vendors I do
business with, that's not a marketing problem.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
