turning on comcast v6
owen at delong.com
Sat Dec 21 20:54:07 UTC 2013
On Dec 20, 2013, at 14:44 , Eric Oosting <eric.oosting at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Matthew Huff <mhuff at ox.com> wrote:
> Have you ever worked in a corporate environment? Replacing equipment can be a 5-7 year window and has to be justified and budgeted. Replacing a piece of equipment because it's an incomplete IPv6 implementation (which has changed considerably as it has been deployed), isn't feasible.
> Not to put words in Owen's mouth, but let me explain how I interpret what he was saying: Vote with your feet.
> It's simple ... maybe you can't replace everything in your network that doesn't support IPv6, ( I wish we all had that kind of discretionary budgets) but you can still base purchasing decisions on IPv6 support, and by and large, that isn't happening. Enterprise purchasing just isn't driven by IPv6 features ... if anything, its a check box feature for vendors and ignored by decision makers.
> Until the enterprise says to the widget salesperson: "i'm not buying this until and unless you truly commit to supporting IPv6" we're stuck where we are.
> We don't necessarily need you to replace everything in your network that doesn't support it today, we need you to not put a single thing in your network new, or used, that doesn't. Believe me, the vendors will get the message and suddenly even the legacy stuff will start to be fixed. Remember what a PITA it was to get novel to support IPv4? They didn't do it until they had to.
Absolutely correct interpretation of my statement.
More information about the NANOG