[83119] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: /8 end user assignment?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Andy Davidson)
Fri Aug 5 05:13:56 2005
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 10:13:22 +0100
From: Andy Davidson <andy@nosignal.org>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <17139.10881.44935.585770@roam.psg.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Randy Bush wrote:
>>Until such devices support IPv6, to reiterate Steve's point, it's not an
>>option to consider approaching connectivity suppliers with IPv6 enquiries.
> could you comment on christopher's observation that, given the likely
> volume of v6 traffic, you would not have a v6 load worth balancing?
My point was that the 'loadbalancers' do so much more than share load,
and I don't want to lose this functionality.
But to answer your question, the market isn't providing us with enough -
or rather *any* interest, and this is what matters. If we reach the
point where people can't buy widgets from us until we support IPv6, or
that people would rather buy widgets from someone else because they
support it, then we have to move.
I don't know if there can be other financial incentives for us - if we
can buy IPv6 connectivity very cheaply - which helps us squeeze those
margins even more of course, then similarly we have to move. Quickly.
-a
