nanog mailing list archives
Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast
From: Matthew Petach <mpetach () netflight com>
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2021 01:24:19 -0800
On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 6:27 PM Joe Maimon <jmaimon () jmaimon com> wrote:
Tom Beecher wrote: [...]IPv6 isn't perfect. That's not an excuse to ignore it and invest the limited resources we have into Yet Another IPv4 Zombification Effort.As noted earlier, False Dilemma Even worse, your thinking presupposes a finite amount of people-effort resources that must be properly managed by those superior in some fashion with more correct thinking.
This is absolutely true in the corporate world. You have a finite number of people working a finite number of hours each week on tasks that must be prioritized based on business needs. You can't magically make more people appear out of thin air without spending more money, which is generally against the needs of the business, and you can't generally make more working hours appear in the week without either magic or violating workers rights. Thus, you have a finite amount of people-effort resources which must be managed by those higher up in the corporate structure. As an old boss of mine once said... "You sum it up so well." Matt
Current thread:
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast, (continued)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast David Conrad (Nov 18)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast John Gilmore (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Gaurav Kansal (Nov 20)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Joe Provo (Nov 19)
- Message not available
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast John Gilmore (Nov 18)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Karsten Thomann via NANOG (Nov 18)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast David Conrad (Nov 18)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Jim (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Tom Beecher (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Joe Maimon (Nov 20)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Matthew Petach (Nov 21)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 20)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Michael Thomas (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast William Herrin (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Michael Thomas (Nov 19)
- Re: is ipv6 fast, was silly Redeploying John Levine (Nov 19)
- Re: is ipv6 fast, was silly Redeploying Michael Thomas (Nov 19)
- Re: is ipv6 fast, was silly Redeploying John Levine (Nov 19)
- Re: is ipv6 fast, was silly Redeploying John Lee (Nov 19)
- Re: is ipv6 fast, was silly Redeploying Saku Ytti (Nov 20)