Re: Remember "Internet-In-A-Box"?

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

> On Jul 15, 2015, at 22:46 , Matthew Kaufman <matthew () matthew at> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/15/15 7:32 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > Go to any business with hardware that is 3-5 years old in its IT
> > infrastructure and devices ranging from PCs running XP to the random
> > consumer gear people bring in (cameras, printers, tablets, etc.) and see
> > how easy it is to get everything talking on an IPv6-only (no IPv4 at
> > all) network... including using IPv6 to do automatic updates and all the
> > other pieces that need to work. We're nowhere near ready for that.
> > None of which is the fault of the protocol.  Blame the equipement vendors
> > for being negligent.
>
> I could blame the people doing IT in those environments too, but that doesn't make it so that nobody needs IPv4 
> addresses to deploy servers to keep talking to these folks.
>
> Matthew Kaufman

Need is not the problem. Availability is a problem now. It’s going to be a more difficult problem in the future.

The sooner we get to where they are using IPv6 even if they’re just dual-stacked, the sooner  availability becomes less 
of a problem due to the elimination of need.

Since availability isn’t going to get better, really, the only option to make the situation better is to eliminate 
need. The best way to eliminate need for IPv4 is IPv6.

It’s really as simple as that.

Owen