nanog mailing list archives
Re: Lazy network operators
From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis () kurtis pp se>
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 12:37:40 +0200
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2004-04-18, at 01.10, Paul Jakma wrote:
Hmmm, or rather, there just wont be any demand for IPv6 deployment, at least from the edges (consumers, small/medium networks). Why bother changing if, despite the (almost indefinitely) availability of sparse address space, one can not claim a tiny piece as ones' own? Which is IPv4's only problem, at least as seen from the edges.
I think you will find that this varies a lot from region to region. There is no drive or need for it in the US, there is slightly more interest in Europe. But in Asia you will find that their scaling problem is completely different. I believe there will be a change. If it will be IPv6 as we know it today, that remains to be seen. - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBQIJadqarNKXTPFCVEQLuBACfZ6nPHPsCoYQaH/X9OzCF87WuhaQAn3nj FL/3cLcTZyZPIVmV0QXK/hF/ =VsLH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Current thread:
- Re: Lazy network operators, (continued)
- Re: Lazy network operators Pekka Savola (Apr 16)
- Re: Lazy network operators Paul Vixie (Apr 16)
- Re: Lazy network operators Niels Bakker (Apr 16)
- Re: Lazy network operators Iljitsch van Beijnum (Apr 16)
- Re: Lazy network operators Paul Vixie (Apr 16)
- Re: Lazy network operators Petri Helenius (Apr 16)
- Re: Lazy network operators Iljitsch van Beijnum (Apr 16)
- Re: Lazy network operators Petri Helenius (Apr 16)
- Re: Lazy network operators Paul Jakma (Apr 17)
- Re: Lazy network operators Paul Vixie (Apr 17)
- Re: Lazy network operators Kurt Erik Lindqvist (Apr 20)
- RE: Lazy network operators Stephen J. Wilcox (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Petri Helenius (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Alex Bligh (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators John Curran (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Todd Vierling (Apr 14)