[189583] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 is better than ipv4
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeff McAdams)
Thu Jun 2 16:52:12 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CAL9jLabNo+GDpV2uzw-qR2h3h49UgyuRq1CZRdC79=r+B4tQsg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 16:46:50 -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 15:45, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Jeff McAdams <jeffm@iglou.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> your example sounds like ignorance, not marketing.
No doubt his response was born of ignorance. The correct response
is...well, education, not necessarily marketing...but at the 30k foot
level, they amount to the same thing (thus my parenthetical comment about
using the term "marketing" broadly), as I think the upthread comments were
doing.
--
Jeff
