nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 Thought Experiment
From: Antonios Chariton <daknob.mac () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2019 19:46:58 +0300
Let me clarify that I 100% agree with both Job and Dovid. It is indeed a terrible idea. And not everyone is even convinced IPv6 is the right next step. So it’s obviously wrong to push people towards where someone thinks, even if it’s the majority. I just had a hunch that even then we would still not see IPv6 adoption.. So there must be many more problems that we overlook. I just wanted to hear what other people think on the matter.
On 2 Oct 2019, at 19:43, Job Snijders <job () instituut net> wrote: It appears in your thought experiment, a stick is dressed up like a carrot. I’m not a fan of deploying purely punitive strategies to promote adoption; technologies should stand on their own and be able to convince the potential users based on their merit, not based on penalties.
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Warren Kumari (Oct 04)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Doug Barton (Oct 04)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment tim () pelican org (Oct 04)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Matt Harris (Oct 04)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Masataka Ohta (Oct 04)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Seth Mattinen (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Mark Andrews (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Seth Mattinen (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv6 Thought Experiment Antonios Chariton (Oct 02)
- Re: IPv6 Thought Experiment Antonios Chariton (Oct 02)
- Re: IPv6 Thought Experiment Daniel Seagraves (Oct 02)
- Re: IPv6 Thought Experiment Martin Hannigan (Oct 02)