Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA

Mark Smith nanog at
Tue Oct 19 19:05:11 CDT 2010

On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:25:12 -0700
Zaid Ali <zaid at> wrote:

> On 10/19/10 3:58 PM, "Mark Andrews" <marka at> wrote:
> > Adding is seperate IPv6 server is a work around and runs the risk
> > of being overloaded.
> And what a wonderful problem to have! You can show a CFO a nice cacti graph
> of IPv6 growth so you can justify him/her to sign off on IPv6 expenses. A
> CFO will never act unless there is a real business problem.

When did CFOs run the company? If you're taking this decision to C
level management, the CIO, CTO or the CEO should be the ones making the
decision. They direct where money goes, not the CFO.

The easy business case for IPv6 is insurance. At some point in the
relatively near future there may be content or services that are only
available over IPv6. Investing in IPv6 deployment now is insurance
against not being able to access that content when you may need to in
the future. Do your management want to miss out on being able to
access the next IPv6-only Google,, etc., when it is
critical to the business? Somebody in the organisation will have
responsibility for ensuring continued and reliable access to services
the company needs, and if that includes Internet access, then IPv6 is
going to become an essential part of that continued and reliable
Internet access.

> There are some
> of us here who have management with clue but there are many that don't,
> sadly this is the majority and a large contributor to the slow adoption of
> IPv6.
> Zaid

More information about the NANOG mailing list