Limited municipal budgets is all I can say. IPv6 has a cost, and if they can put it off till later then that's often good politics.
-mel via cell > On Jul 10, 2015, at 2:42 PM, Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org> wrote: > > > In message > <cal9jlaba5no6yq99crhdgrthtsb0vgp3gdneu-vu2-4r_1_...@mail.gmail.com> > , Christopher Morrow writes: >>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Mel Beckman <m...@beckman.org> wrote: >>> I working on a large airport WiFi deployment right now. IPv6 is "allowed = >> for in the future" but not configured in the short term. With less than 10,= >> 000 ephemeral users, we don't expect users to demand IPv6 until most mobile= >> devices and apps come ready to use IPv6 by default. >> >> 'we don't expect users to demand ipv6' >> >> aside from #nanog folks, who 'demands' ipv6? >> >> Don't they actually 'demand' "access to content on the internet" ? >> >> Since you seem to have a greenfield deployment, why NOT just put v6 in >> place on day0? retrofitting it is surely going to cost time/materials >> and probably upgrades to gear that could be avoided by doing it in the >> initial installation, right? > > +1 and you will most probably see about 50% of the traffic being IPv6 if > you do so. There is lots of IPv6 capable equipment out there just waiting > to see a RA. > > Mark > -- > Mark Andrews, ISC > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org