Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

[Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

> On Sep 18, 2021, at 11:37 , John Levine <johnl () iecc com> wrote:
>
> It appears that Owen DeLong via NANOG <owen () delong com> said:
> > > The cost of putting flyers in the bills rounds to zero, so yes, really. I expect these companies all have plans
> > to support v6 eventually, someday, once they're retired and replaced all of the old junk that handles v6 poorly or
> > not at all, but you know about accountants and depreciation.
> >
> > Unless their infrastructure runs significantly on hardware and software pre-2004 (unlikely), so does the cost of
> > adding IPv6 to their content servers. Especially if they’re using a CDN such as Akamai.
>
> I wasn't talking about switches and routers.  I was talking about every single piece of software and equipment that
> they use for support and marketing and customer service and all the other stuff that big companies do.

That doesn’t all have to change in order to make their services available on IPv6 also.

IPv6 is not an all-or-nothing thing.

If your backend is all IPv4 all the time and you want to keep it that way, more power to you. I encourage my 
competitors to try that.

However, if your customer-facing services are IPv4-only, that’s not hard to fix in most cases and it’s really obnoxious 
not to do so.

> As I may have said once or twice, eventuallly it'll all be replaced so it works on IPv6 but we're not holding our 
> breath.

I’m not holding my breath, but I’m also trying to argue reasonable approaches and realistic solutions here.

You seem to be looking for excuses to claim the problem that needs to be solved is harder than it is to justify not 
solving it.

Owen