IPv6 Real World Maturity (was re: How long is your rack?)

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Mon Aug 15 06:24:24 UTC 2011

On Aug 14, 2011, at 5:43 PM, Tim Wilde wrote:

> Hash: SHA1
> On 8/14/2011 8:36 PM, Charles N Wyble wrote:
>> Can someone explain the operational relevance of the never ending v6 
>> threads that are the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS over and over and over
>> again? :)
> Yes, they prove that IPv6 is not a viable technology as it currently
> stands and we should be working on the next big thing, of course!
> IPv42, here I come!
> On a serious note, though, really, what DOES it say about the real-world
> maturity / actual chances of adoption for IPv6 that Charles' statement
> above is, in fact, true?  Not trying to be anti-IPv6 or start a flamewar
> (well, okay, I am trying to start a flamewar, that's what Sunday nights
> are for :)), it's honestly something that puzzles me.  It just doesn't
> feel right…
What does it say that the same thing happens in IPv4?

I really don't see a significant difference in that regard.

Yes, IPv6 is currently a little less fully baked than IPv4. IPv4 is 20
years older than IPv6, so I say that's to be somewhat expected.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20110814/e401c21b/attachment.bin>

More information about the NANOG mailing list