Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

> On Jan 4, 2016, at 20:27 , George Metz <george.metz () gmail com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 9:37 PM, Randy Bush <randy () psg com> wrote:
>
> > the more interesting question to me is: what can we, ops and ietf, do
> > to make it operationally and financially easier for providers and
> > enterprises to go to ipv6 instead of ipv4 nat?  carrot not stick.
> >
> > randy
>
> The problem is, the only way to make it easier for providers and
> enterprises to switch is to make it less scary looking and less complicated
> sounding. That door closed when it was decided to go with hex and 128-bit
> numbering. *I* know it's not nearly as bad as it seems and why it was done,
> and their network folks by and large know it's not as bad as it seems, but
> the people making the decisions to spend large sums of money upgrading
> stuff that works just fine thank-you-very-much are looking at it and saying
> "Ye gods... I sort of understand what IP means but that looks like an alien
> language!"
>
> At which point the ugly duckling gets tossed out on it's ear before it has
> a chance to become a swan.

I haven’t been involved in a single executive briefing where hex or the length
of the addresses came up as an issue.

This is a total red herring.

Decision makers aren’t paying attention to what the addresses look like. Most of
them likely wouldn’t recognize an IPv4 address if you showed them one.

Owen