nanog mailing list archives
Re: Nat
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:55:00 -0800
On Dec 18, 2015, at 13:35 , Lee Howard <Lee () asgard org> wrote: On 12/16/15, 7:14 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Mel Beckman" <nanog-bounces () nanog org on behalf of mel () beckman org> wrote:Mark, Why? Why do WE "need" to force people to bend to our will? The market will get us all there eventually.
Not all problems are well solved by markets, contrary to popular dogma. In this case, those with the least ability to affect the outcome overall are the ones with the greatest need for IPv6. Large incumbent organizations that have lots of IPv4 addresses already have very little tangible market incentive to move, yet until they move, it’s very difficult for smaller players to operate without IPv4 even though it’s now very hard for them to get IPv4 addresses. As such, it’s incumbent on each and every one of us to try and resolve this globally so as to reduce the lasting impacts of our dependence on IPv4 globally. Owen
Current thread:
- Re: Nat, (continued)
- Re: Nat Mark Andrews (Dec 16)
- Re: Nat alvin nanog (Dec 16)
- Re: Nat Larry Sheldon (Dec 16)
- Re: Nat Charles Monson (Dec 16)
- Re: Nat Mark Andrews (Dec 16)
- Re: Nat Mel Beckman (Dec 16)
- Re: Nat Larry Sheldon (Dec 16)
- Re: Nat Mark Andrews (Dec 16)
- Re: Nat Stephen Satchell (Dec 16)
- Re: Nat Lee Howard (Dec 18)
- Re: Nat Owen DeLong (Dec 18)
- Re: Nat Mark Andrews (Dec 18)
- Re: Nat Mark Andrews (Dec 16)
- Re: Nat Randy Bush (Dec 16)
- Re: Nat Berry Mobley (Dec 16)
- Message not available
- Re: Nat Josh Reynolds (Dec 16)
- Re: Nat Matthew Petach (Dec 17)
- RE: Nat Chuck Church (Dec 17)
- Re: Nat Mark Andrews (Dec 17)
- Re: Nat Mike Hammett (Dec 19)
- Re: Nat Daniel Corbe (Dec 19)
- RE: Nat Chuck Church (Dec 20)