The Reg does 240/4

Thu Feb 15 00:40:56 UTC 2024

>
> All we can do is educate people on the importance of IPv6 uptake, we can
> not force people to adopt it.
>

At this stage of the game, networks and products that don't support V6
aren't likely to do so unless there is a forcing function to make them do
it. Meaning money.

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 6:35 PM Christopher Hawker <chris at thesysadmin.au>
wrote:

> John,
>
> If you feel that it is wasted time, you are welcome to not partake in the
> discussion. Your remarks have been noted.
>
> It's all well and good to say that "more sites could have IPv6 if time
> wasn't being wasted on 240/4" however we can only do so much regarding the
> deployment of v6 within networks we manage. All we can do is educate people
> on the importance of IPv6 uptake, we can not force people to adopt it. The
> only way to rapidly accelerate the uptake of IPv6 is for networks is to
> either offer better rates for v6 transit, or disable v4 connectivity
> completely.
>
> Otherwise v6 connectivity is going to dawdle at the current rate it is.
>
> Regards,
> Christopher Hawker
> ------------------------------
> *From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces+chris=thesysadmin.au at nanog.org> on behalf of
> John Levine <johnl at iecc.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2024 10:11 AM
> *To:* nanog at nanog.org <nanog at nanog.org>
> *Subject:* Re: The Reg does 240/4
>
> It appears that William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> said:
> >On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 9:23 AM Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog at nanog.org>
> wrote:
> >> Think how many more sites could have IPv6 capability already if this
> wasted effort had been put into that, instead.
> >
> >"Zero-sum bias is a cognitive bias towards zero-sum thinking;
>
> Well, OK, think how many more sites could hav IPv6 if people weren't
> wasting time arguing about this nonsense.
>
> R's,
> John
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20240214/fb7323a9/attachment.html>