IPv6 is better than ipv4
morrowc.lists at gmail.com
Thu Jun 2 19:45:30 UTC 2016
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Jeff McAdams <jeffm at iglou.com> wrote:
> On Thu, June 2, 2016 13:31, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Mike Hammett <nanog at ics-il.net> wrote:
> >> Yes.
> > REALLY??? I mean REALLY? people that operate networks haven't haven't
> > had beaten into their heads: 1) cgn is expensive
> > 2) there is no more ipv4 (not large amounts for large deployments of new
> > thingies) 3) there really isn't much else except the internet for global
> > networking and reachabilty 4) ipv6 'works' on almost all gear you'd
> > in your network
> (more, reasonably valid observations elided)
> Yes. I had a member of an account team for a networking vendor express
> extreme skepticism when discussing IP address plans and work I had done.
> When describing why I went with an IPv6 only solution for this setup, he
> responded, "Why not just get more IPv4 addresses? Just go back to
> IANA[sic] for more if you don't have enough already."
> OK, maybe it's not *just* marketing, but marketing (using the term
> broadly) is still a very large part of it.
your example sounds like ignorance, not marketing.
More information about the NANOG