[189578] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 is better than ipv4
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeff McAdams)
Thu Jun 2 15:37:55 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CAL9jLaZ2V6gCZteoNKK-uCEeaQk_3YKdCUFXZax=hAs9nFRT1A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 15:37:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Jeff McAdams" <jeffm@iglou.com>
To: "nanog list" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Thu, June 2, 2016 13:31, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
>> Yes.
>>
> ​REALLY??? I mean REALLY? people that operate networks haven't haven't
> had beaten into their heads: 1) cgn is expensive
> 2) there is no more ipv4 (not large amounts for large deployments of new
> thingies) 3) there really isn't much else except the internet for global
> networking and reachabilty 4) ipv6 'works' on almost all gear you'd deploy
> in your network
(more, reasonably valid observations elided)
Yes. I had a member of an account team for a networking vendor express
extreme skepticism when discussing IP address plans and work I had done.
When describing why I went with an IPv6 only solution for this setup, he
responded, "Why not just get more IPv4 addresses? Just go back to
IANA[sic] for more if you don't have enough already."
OK, maybe it's not *just* marketing, but marketing (using the term
broadly) is still a very large part of it.
--
Jeff
