On Dec 20, 2013, at 14:44 , Eric Oosting <eric.oost...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Matthew Huff <mh...@ox.com> wrote: > Owen, > > Have you ever worked in a corporate environment? Replacing equipment can be a > 5-7 year window and has to be justified and budgeted. Replacing a piece of > equipment because it's an incomplete IPv6 implementation (which has changed > considerably as it has been deployed), isn't feasible. > > Not to put words in Owen's mouth, but let me explain how I interpret what he > was saying: Vote with your feet. > > It's simple ... maybe you can't replace everything in your network that > doesn't support IPv6, ( I wish we all had that kind of discretionary budgets) > but you can still base purchasing decisions on IPv6 support, and by and > large, that isn't happening. Enterprise purchasing just isn't driven by IPv6 > features ... if anything, its a check box feature for vendors and ignored by > decision makers. > > Until the enterprise says to the widget salesperson: "i'm not buying this > until and unless you truly commit to supporting IPv6" we're stuck where we > are. > > We don't necessarily need you to replace everything in your network that > doesn't support it today, we need you to not put a single thing in your > network new, or used, that doesn't. Believe me, the vendors will get the > message and suddenly even the legacy stuff will start to be fixed. Remember > what a PITA it was to get novel to support IPv4? They didn't do it until they > had to. > > -e > Absolutely correct interpretation of my statement. Owen
