This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/ipv6-wg@ripe.net/
[ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Lee Howard
lee at asgard.org
Sat Oct 5 15:27:55 CEST 2019
Replying to the Subject question. . . The WG has done good work. RIPE-554 in particular I think is good work. This WG isn't a marketing organization. That's appropriate. One way to look at the problem is that IPv4 exhaustion is a problem of externalities: my network is growing, and it costs me more now because you don't support IPv6. As an economic problem, then, think about how to shift your costs to those who have only IPv4. IPv6 deployment in your network means cutting your NAT expense in half. More, as more sites deploy. IPv6 deployment in your network might mean you can sell some of your IPv4 addresses, a clever way I've seen to fund the transition. IPv6 deployment on your web site means improving your page load time, and therefore SEO, and therefore revenue. At NANOG I showed quotes that IPv6 increases revenue by 0.2%-7%.[1] The cost to deploy IPv6 is not high: it's mostly labor, and people who complain that there's no training are ignoring the hundreds of tutorials, books, articles, videos, and web sites available to them for free, not to mention the thousands of friendly engineers. To everyone who sees a high cost, I ask whether you know the value of NAT reduction and web site speed (and avoiding buying addresses, or selling addresses), in $LOCAL_CURRENCY, so you can evaluate every obstacle you might encounter. For instance, "Our web conferencing doesn't support IPv6, and it'll cost us $9,000 a year to change. But IPv6 will save us $30,000." The decision is easy. In another message on this thread I noted that small ISPs are squeezed between CPE and IPv4 purchases. They can't get CPE that supports IPv6, or that supports MAP or 464xlat, because they don't buy enough, so they have to pay to buy addresses. That's easily solved by collective action: 100 small ISPs can get the features they want (at a better discount) than one acting alone. In the mean time, this WG keeps having fascinating presentations, which I keep using when talking about IPv6 to enterprise IT departments. Keep it up. Lee [1] https://youtu.be/aTi4fia5s-k?t=4386
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]