nanog mailing list archives

Re: Lightly used IP addresses


From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 08:27:24 -0700


On Aug 13, 2010, at 9:12 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:

John et al,

I have read many of your articles about the need to migrate to IPv6
and how failure to do so will impact business continuity sometime in
the next 1 - 3 years. I've pressed our vendors to support IPv6 (note:
keep in mind we're a DDoS mitigation firm, our needs extend beyond
routers and switches) and found that it's a chicken and egg situation.
Vendors are neglecting to support IPv6 because there is "no demand."
I've pointed out your articles and demanded IPv6 support, some are
promising results in the next several months. We will see.

I was at a trade show several months back. I watched a series of people
walk up to a vendor and each, in turn, asked about IPv6 support. The
vendor told each, in turn, "You're the only one asking for it."

I walked up to the vendor and took my turn being told "You're the only
one asking for it." I pointed out that I had seen the other people get
the same answer. The sales person admitted he was caught red
handed and explained "We're working on it, but, we don't have a
definite date and so our marketing department has told us to downplay
the demand and the importance until we have something more
definitive."

Meanwhile, there are hosting companies, dedicated server companies,
etc. with /17 and /18 allocations who are either forging justification
or wildly abusing the use of that space outside of the declared need.

Then those cases should be submitted to the fraud/abuse reporting
process so they can be investigated and resolved.


Owen



Current thread: