nanog mailing list archives
Re: IP4 Space
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:57:33 -0800
IMHO, only personally experienced pain is going to push a lot of these sorts of people into ipv6. By pain, I mean things such as not being able to deploy their new service (web site, email server, VPN box, whatever) on the internet due to lack of ipv4 addresses, having to implement double NAT, CGN/LSN, or being forced to live behind such an arrangement ["what do you mean I can't port forward the port for my favorite game/new service?!?!" (yes, I know some schemes will still allow customer port forwards, but this will be made more difficult, painful, since many users will now be sharing the same publics.)] Once the "pain" hits, many will be doing crash courses in ipv6 androlling it out as quickly as they can. I think it's just human nature. :)- Jim
Yep... We all know you can't get an ostrich's head out of the sand with a shovel. Having said that, I do think we have other tools besides shovels at our disposal. I try to avoid being preachy, but, at the same time, there are some pretty hard numbers available. It's not the guys on IRC that need the most convincing anyway. They know, and in many cases, while they're still in denial, they don't need to change because they couldn't get support from above if they did. The target really needs to be the CxOs and the management, especially in places where there is content facing the general public. Fortunately, Google, Yahoo, Netflix, etc. get it and have moved forward with IPv6. Some others are coming along. I just prodded the IT department at Wells Fargo today while working on troubleshooting an IPv4-based email problem asking them why my messages weren't reaching them over IPv6 as well. The main thing we need to convey to our colleagues in the IRC crowd is that IPv6 really isn't as difficult as some have made it out to be. While it does require some different thinking, mostly in the area of address planning, the rest of it is pretty much business as usual just like IPv4. The other hurdle I've encountered is fear about "switching" to IPv6. We need to be clear that we aren't "switching" to IPv6, we're "adding IPv6 capabilities to the existing IPv4 network". The former creates a lot more fear of change than the latter. Owen (Oh, and in case anyone doesn't know, yes, I work for Hurricane Electric. I went to work there because I liked what they were doing with IPv6. I'd recommend their products (and did) even if I did not work there.)
Current thread:
- Re: IP4 Space, (continued)
- Re: IP4 Space Owen DeLong (Mar 06)
- Re: IP4 Space Andy Davidson (Mar 07)
- Re: IP4 Space Robert Brockway (Mar 08)
- Re: IP4 Space Tony Hoyle (Mar 08)
- Re: IP4 Space Joel Jaeggli (Mar 04)
- Re: IP4 Space Larry Sheldon (Mar 04)
- Re: IP4 Space Owen DeLong (Mar 04)
- Re: IP4 Space Jens Link (Mar 10)
- Re: IP4 Space Andy Koch (Mar 10)
- Re: IP4 Space Jim Burwell (Mar 10)
- Re: IP4 Space Owen DeLong (Mar 10)
- Re: IP4 Space Jim Burwell (Mar 10)
- Re: IP4 Space Lamar Owen (Mar 26)
- Re: IP4 Space Owen DeLong (Mar 26)
- Re: IP4 Space Dave Israel (Mar 26)
- Re: IP4 Space Owen DeLong (Mar 26)
- Re: IP4 Space Christopher LILJENSTOLPE (Mar 26)
- Re: IP4 Space Lamar Owen (Mar 26)
- Re: IP4 Space - IVI et.al. bmanning (Mar 27)
- Re: IP4 Space - IVI et.al. Simon Leinen (Mar 28)
- Re: IP4 Space - IVI et.al. bmanning (Mar 28)