[189580] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 is better than ipv4
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Morrow)
Thu Jun 2 15:45:41 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <32916.64.6.220.221.1464896238.iglou@webmail.iglou.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 15:45:30 -0400
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
To: Jeff McAdams <jeffm@iglou.com>
Cc: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Jeff McAdams <jeffm@iglou.com> wrote:
> 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.
> >>
> > =E2=80=8BREALLY??? 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 ne=
w
> > thingies) 3) there really isn't much else except the internet for globa=
l
> > 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.
>
>
=E2=80=8Byour example sounds like ignorance, not marketing.=E2=80=8B
