Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc>]

> All we can do is educate people on the importance of IPv6 uptake, we can
> not force people to adopt it.

At this stage of the game, networks and products that don't support V6
aren't likely to do so unless there is a forcing function to make them do
it. Meaning money.



On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 6:35 PM Christopher Hawker <chris () thesysadmin au>
wrote:

> John,
>
> If you feel that it is wasted time, you are welcome to not partake in the
> discussion. Your remarks have been noted.
>
> It's all well and good to say that "more sites could have IPv6 if time
> wasn't being wasted on 240/4" however we can only do so much regarding the
> deployment of v6 within networks we manage. All we can do is educate people
> on the importance of IPv6 uptake, we can not force people to adopt it. The
> only way to rapidly accelerate the uptake of IPv6 is for networks is to
> either offer better rates for v6 transit, or disable v4 connectivity
> completely.
>
> Otherwise v6 connectivity is going to dawdle at the current rate it is.
>
> Regards,
> Christopher Hawker
> ------------------------------
> *From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces+chris=thesysadmin.au () nanog org> on behalf of
> John Levine <johnl () iecc com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2024 10:11 AM
> *To:* nanog () nanog org <nanog () nanog org>
> *Subject:* Re: The Reg does 240/4
>
> It appears that William Herrin <bill () herrin us> said:
> > On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 9:23 AM Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
> wrote:
> > > Think how many more sites could have IPv6 capability already if this
> wasted effort had been put into that, instead.
> > "Zero-sum bias is a cognitive bias towards zero-sum thinking;
>
> Well, OK, think how many more sites could hav IPv6 if people weren't
> wasting time arguing about this nonsense.
>
> R's,
> John