Re: IPv6 is better than ipv4

[Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com>]

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Mike Hammett <nanog () 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 deploy in your network

and content side folks haven't had beaten into their heads:
  1) ipv6 is where the network is going, do it now so you aren't caught
with your pants (proverbial!) down
  2) more and more customers are going to have ipv6 and not NAT'd ipv4...
you can better target, better identify and better service v6 vs v4 users​.
  3) adding ipv6 transport really SHOULD be as simple as adding a AAAA

I figure at this point, in 2016, the reasons aren't "marketing" but either:
  a) turning the ship is hard (vz's continual lack of v6 on wireline
services...)
  b) can't spend the opex/capex while keeping the current ship afloat
  c) meh


I can't see that 'marketing' is really going to matter... I mean, if you
haven't gotten the message now:
   http://i.imgur.com/8vZOU0T.gif



> -----
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.lists () gmail com>
> To: "Daniel Corbe" <dcorbe () hammerfiber com>
> Cc: nanog () nanog org
> Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2016 11:41:33 AM
> Subject: Re: IPv6 is better than ipv4
>
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Daniel Corbe <dcorbe () hammerfiber com>
> wrote:
>
> > Maybe we should let people believe that IPv6 is faster than IPv4 even if
> > objectively that isn’t true. Perhaps that will help speed along the
> > adoption process.
>
>
> do we REALLY think it's still just /marketing problem/ that keeps v6
> deployment on the slow-boat?