quietly....

Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu
Tue Feb 1 15:08:32 CST 2011


On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 10:27:45 -1000, Paul Graydon said:

> We're still using v4 because we can, because there has been no 
> compelling business case to justify spending time on something that 
> isn't necessary just right now, especially given the not insignificant 
> changes between v4 and v6.  There is nothing on line that isn't 
> accessible over IPv4 so there has been no critical app outside the 
> infrastructure to spur such changes yet either.

And if you're not working on deploying IPv6 now, will you be able to
survive the delay when something critical *does* come online and you
need 18 months or whatever to deploy?

Heck - we started deploying in Feb 1997 or so, and as I write this, MRTG is
reporting that about 5% of our off-campus traffic is via IPv6 - probably due to
the fact that we hit Google and Youtube that way.  But we *still* have gear and
software that doesn't play nice (though almost all of that is our own internal
headaches and not very visible to end users - their connectivity works).

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 227 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20110201/f18c7b2d/attachment.bin>


More information about the NANOG mailing list