IPv6 is better than ipv4

Thu Jun 2 17:38:46 UTC 2016

I would be surprised if more than 10% - 20% of networks have received effective marketing on IPv6. 

Look at how many network operators that don't "get" basic network security alerts like "There is a long since patched vulnerability being actively exploited on the Internet right now. Your equipment will reset to default in 18.5 hours of infection. Please patch now." Equipment resetting to default is a metric crap ton more serious than IPv6 implementation and people don't take that seriously. 

Think outside of the NANOG bubble. 

(I *REALLY* hate the way this list replies to the individual and not the list... and doesn't have a bracketed name in the subject.) 

----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.lists at gmail.com> 
To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog at ics-il.net> 
Cc: "nanog list" <nanog at nanog.org> 
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2016 12:31:43 PM 
Subject: Re: IPv6 is better than ipv4 

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Mike Hammett < nanog at 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 

and content side folks haven't had beaten into their heads: 
1) ipv6 is where the network is going, do it now so you aren't caught with your pants (proverbial!) down 
2) more and more customers are going to have ipv6 and not NAT'd ipv4... you can better target, better identify and better service v6 vs v4 users. 
3) adding ipv6 transport really SHOULD be as simple as adding a AAAA 

I figure at this point, in 2016, the reasons aren't "marketing" but either: 
a) turning the ship is hard (vz's continual lack of v6 on wireline services...) 
b) can't spend the opex/capex while keeping the current ship afloat 
c) meh 

I can't see that 'marketing' is really going to matter... I mean, if you haven't gotten the message now: 
http://i.imgur.com/8vZOU0T.gif 

<blockquote>

----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Christopher Morrow" < morrowc.lists at gmail.com > 
To: "Daniel Corbe" < dcorbe at hammerfiber.com > 
Cc: nanog at nanog.org 
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2016 11:41:33 AM 
Subject: Re: IPv6 is better than ipv4 

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Daniel Corbe < dcorbe at hammerfiber.com > 
wrote: 

> Maybe we should let people believe that IPv6 is faster than IPv4 even if 
> objectively that isn’t true. Perhaps that will help speed along the 
> adoption process. 

do we REALLY think it's still just /marketing problem/ that keeps v6 
deployment on the slow-boat? 

</blockquote>