Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA

Cameron Byrne cb.list6 at
Tue Oct 19 19:33:27 CDT 2010

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Mark Smith
<nanog at> wrote:
> 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.

True. But, i will say, at my employer, the CFO does control the
corporate risk management group that oversees the business continuity
strategy.  Without IP addresses, we can't grow the business, and
that's a problem.  So, the CFO is a stake holder where i work.  Along
the lines of IPv6 for business continuity, i usually point people to
this ARIN link which is very official and makes it clear the IPv4
addresses are running out, there is a risk to manage.  The CFO tries
to make sure the money we spend is spent wisely, IPv6 does not
directly drive new revenues, but it does diffuse the IP exhaust
crisis. It's simply about business continuity.  That is something all
the CxOs can understand clearly.

> 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.

Agreed. But, I'll flip it around on you.  Same idea, but many mobile
eyeballs are going IPv6-only.   If you are a content provider and you
want to make sure people can see your website, then you will want to
be on IPv6.

>> 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.

It's the old story, pay a little now to have an IPv6 plan and get the
wheels moving.  Or, be caught flat footed, and pay a lot later in
forklift upgrades and lost customers.


More information about the NANOG mailing list