: http://collaborate.intra.bt.com/
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of David Conrad
Sent: 13 March 2008 16:49
To: Jamie Bowden
Cc: North American Network Operators Group
Subject: Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6
I'm told by some folks who run core networks for a living
that while the routers may sling IPv6 packets as fast or
faster than IPv4, doing
so with ACLs, filter lists, statistics, monitoring, etc., is
lacking.
What's worse, the vendors aren't spinning the ASICs (which
I'm told have
Dillon,M,Michael,DMK R would like to recall the message, cost of dual-stack vs
cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?].
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 03:06:24PM -0500, Frank Bulk -
iNAME wrote:
Furthermore, he stated that networking equipment companies like Cisco will
be moving away from IPv4 in 5 years or so. This is the first time I've
heard this
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 03:26:48PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Leo Bicknell wrote:
ISP's are very good at one thing, driving out unnecessary cost.
Running dual stack increases cost. While I'm not sure about the 5
year part, I'm sure ISP's will move to disable IPv4 support
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, David W. Hankins wrote:
I don't know why Leo thinks so, but even I can observe the extra
recurring support cost of having to work through two stacks with every
customer that dials in as being far greater than any technology
costs in either single-stack scenario. The
In a message written on Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 03:26:48PM +0200, Pekka Savola
wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Leo Bicknell wrote:
ISP's are very good at one thing, driving out unnecessary cost.
Running dual stack increases cost. While I'm not sure about the 5
year part, I'm sure ISP's will move to
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Leo Bicknell wrote:
1) Early adopters deploy IPv6 while continuing to make most of their
money off IPv4. We're already well into this state.
2) Substantially all ( 90%?) of the Internet is dual stacked, or has
other transition mechanisms in place.
Who has the other
In a message written on Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 05:18:16PM +0200, Pekka Savola
wrote:
Who has the other transition mechanisms in place? What is the cost of
deploying those transition mechanisms? At present it's not obvious
how you can explain to the bean counters that deploying these are
a slow but steady uptake across the rest of North
America.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Pekka Savola
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 11:18 AM
To: Leo Bicknell
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6
I don't know why Leo thinks so, but even I can observe the
extra recurring support cost of having to work through two
stacks with every customer that dials in as being far
greater than any technology costs in either single-stack
scenario. The 'recurring' part is the real killer.
This
--- On Thu, 3/13/08, Leo Bicknell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now think hard about a prediction we'll still be
running IPv4 in 20
years. A two decade transition period just does not fit
this industry's
history.
To be fair, I've encourntered an awful lot of SNA which is still out there, so
Jamie,
On Mar 13, 2008, at 8:42 AM, Jamie Bowden wrote:
MS, Apple, Linux, *BSD are ALL dual stack out of the box currently.
The fact that the kernel may support IPv6 does not mean that IPv6 is
actually usable (as events at NANOG, APRICOT, and the IETF have
shown). There are lots of bits
At 9:48 AM -0700 3/13/08, David Conrad wrote:
What is _really_ missing is content accessible over IPv6 as it results in
the chicken-or-egg problem: without content, few customers will request IPv6.
Without customer requests for IPv6, it's hard to make the business case to
deploy the
and a large chunk of Asia and Europe are running IPv6 right now.
I keep hearing this, but could you indicate what parts of Asia and
Europe are running IPv6 right now? I'm aware, for example, that NTT is
using IPv6 for their FLETS service, but that is an internal transport
service not
On 2008-03-13, David Conrad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is
_really_ missing is content accessible over IPv6 as it results in the
chicken-or-egg problem: without content, few customers will request
IPv6.
There are already
Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2008-03-13, David Conrad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is
_really_ missing is content accessible over IPv6 as it results in the
chicken-or-egg problem: without content, few customers will request
Randy,
actally, drc, here is where you and i diverge. there will never be
demand for ipv6 from the end user. they just want their mtv, and do
not
care if it comes on ipv4, ipv6, or donkey-back.
I agree. What I meant was that customers will demand content and
since that content is
There are already things like http://ipv6.google.com/,
True, since yesterday. However, while I applaud their efforts, Google
is still primarily a search engine. How much of the content Google
serves up is accessible via IPv6? I might suggest reviewing
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, David Conrad wrote:
There are already things like http://ipv6.google.com/,
True, since yesterday. However, while I applaud their efforts, Google is
still primarily a search engine. How much of the content Google serves up is
accessible via IPv6? I might suggest
From: David Conrad [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 09:48:43 -0700
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jamie,
On Mar 13, 2008, at 8:42 AM, Jamie Bowden wrote:
MS, Apple, Linux, *BSD are ALL dual stack out of the box currently.
The fact that the kernel may support IPv6 does not mean
21 matches
Mail list logo
