> On 28 Nov 2019, at 06:08, Brian Knight <m...@knight-networks.com> wrote:
>
> On 2019-11-26 17:11, Ca By wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 12:15 AM Sabri Berisha <sa...@cluecentral.net>
>> wrote:
>>> ----- On Nov 26, 2019, at 1:36 AM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
>
> [snip]
>>> there is no ROI at this point. In this kind of environment there needs to
>>> be a strong case to invest the capex to support IPv6.
>>> IPv6 must be supported on the CxO level in order to be deployed.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Sabri, (Badum tsss) MBA
>> I see....well let me translate it you MBA-eese for you:
>> FANG deployed ipv6 nearly 10 years ago. Since deploying ipv6, the cohort
>> experienced 300% CAGR. Also, everything is mobile, and all mobile providers
>> in the usa offer ipv6 by default in most cases. Latency! Scale! As your
>> company launches its digital transformation iot 2020 virtualization
>> container initiatives, ipv6 will be an integral part of staying relevant on
>> the blockchain. Also, FANG did it nearly 10 years ago. Big content and
>> big eyeballs are on ipv6, ipv4 is a winnowing longtail of irrelevance and
>> iot botnets.
>
> None of which matters a damn to almost all of my business eyeball customers.
> They can still get from our network to 100% of all Internet content &
> services via IPv4 in 2019.
No you can’t. You can’t reach the machine I’m typing on via IPv4 and it is ON
THE INTERNET. It is directly reachable via IPv6. Selling Internet
connectivity without IPv6 should be considered fraud these days. Don’t
you believe in “Truth in Advertising”?
> I regularly vet deals for our sales team, and out of the hundreds of deals
> we sold this year, I can count on one hand the number of deals where
> customers wanted IPv6. We sold them IPv6 access, but we didn't put it on our
> own network, because we face the same internal challenges Sabri mentioned.
> (SD-WAN, OTOH, was far more popular. I'll give you three guesses why. Hint
> - it's not because tunnel technology is awesome and allows us to scale our
> networks further and everyone is doing it.)
> Though their participation has been key in making IPv6 more useful for
> eyeballs, content hasn't driven adoption. The only thing eyeballs care about
> is getting to 100% of what they need and want at minimal cost. Until eyeball
> networks start charging eyeballs for IPv4, IPv4 will linger. The day
> eyeballs start bitching on forums, opening tickets, complaining on Twitter,
> etc. because they have only IPv6 is when IPv4 will start to lose relevance.
>
> As an aside, I would guess that it's the corporate eyeball customers with
> servers, not resi/mobile behind CGNAT, that will bear the brunt of the IPv4
> cost first. But what enterprise wants to tell its non-IPv6 customers "your
> Internet needs to be upgraded, come back to us when you're done?" That
> doesn't bode well for the short-term future.
>
> -Brian
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
