Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Tue Jan 5 08:43:05 UTC 2016


> On Jan 4, 2016, at 20:27 , George Metz <george.metz at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 9:37 PM, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote:
> 
>> the more interesting question to me is: what can we, ops and ietf, do
>> to make it operationally and financially easier for providers and
>> enterprises to go to ipv6 instead of ipv4 nat?  carrot not stick.
>> 
>> randy
>> 
> 
> The problem is, the only way to make it easier for providers and
> enterprises to switch is to make it less scary looking and less complicated
> sounding. That door closed when it was decided to go with hex and 128-bit
> numbering. *I* know it's not nearly as bad as it seems and why it was done,
> and their network folks by and large know it's not as bad as it seems, but
> the people making the decisions to spend large sums of money upgrading
> stuff that works just fine thank-you-very-much are looking at it and saying
> "Ye gods... I sort of understand what IP means but that looks like an alien
> language!"
> 
> At which point the ugly duckling gets tossed out on it's ear before it has
> a chance to become a swan.

I haven’t been involved in a single executive briefing where hex or the length
of the addresses came up as an issue.

This is a total red herring.

Decision makers aren’t paying attention to what the addresses look like. Most of
them likely wouldn’t recognize an IPv4 address if you showed them one.

Owen




More information about the NANOG mailing list