Request to participate in 2-min study survey on IPv6 Adoption

Tue Feb 1 02:24:29 UTC 2022

Yo Töma!

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 04:16:49 +0200
Töma Gavrichenkov <ximaera at gmail.com> wrote:

> (I'm making up figures now, obviously)

When you base decision on imaginary figures, you get suboptimal results.

> the SNR of UGC in IPv4 is like 10x times it is in IPv6

My experience, using fail2band, and spamassassin, for over a decade with
IPv6, is that 100x more spam and other abuse comes from IPv4, not IPv6.

> your management would start asking questions
> about whether it's really the best time to invest in this rather than
> in another potential revenue stream.

Now what would your management thinK?  Then toss in that IPv6 is faster
than IPv4.  Dunno why, but easy to prove that for yourself.  If you care
to experiment, rather than make up figures.

RGDS
GARY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97703
	gem at rellim.com  Tel:+1 541 382 8588

	    Veritas liberabit vos. -- Quid est veritas?
    "If you can't measure it, you can't improve it." - Lord Kelvin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 851 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220131/ee03b7a5/attachment.sig>