Re: turning on comcast v6

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Dec 20, 2013, at 14:44 , Eric Oosting <eric.oosting () gmail com> wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Matthew Huff <mhuff () ox com> wrote:
> Owen,
>
> Have you ever worked in a corporate environment? Replacing equipment can be a 5-7 year window and has to be justified 
> and budgeted. Replacing a piece of equipment because it's an incomplete IPv6 implementation (which has changed 
> considerably as it has been deployed), isn't feasible.
>
> Not to put words in Owen's mouth, but let me explain how I interpret what he was saying: Vote with your feet.
>
> It's simple ... maybe you can't replace everything in your network that doesn't support IPv6, ( I wish we all had 
> that kind of discretionary budgets) but you can still base purchasing decisions on IPv6 support, and by and large, 
> that isn't happening. Enterprise purchasing just isn't driven by IPv6 features ... if anything, its a check box 
> feature for vendors and ignored by decision makers.
>
> Until the enterprise says to the widget salesperson: "i'm not buying this until and unless you truly commit to 
> supporting IPv6" we're stuck where we are.
>
> We don't necessarily need you to replace everything in your network that doesn't support it today, we need you to not 
> put a single thing in your network new, or used, that doesn't. Believe me, the vendors will get the message and 
> suddenly even the legacy stuff will start to be fixed. Remember what a PITA it was to get novel to support IPv4? They 
> didn't do it until they had to.
>
> -e
>  
Absolutely correct interpretation of my statement.

Owen