On 11/11/19 4:13 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > If you want to make meaningful progress, you’re talking about “deploying > enough IPv6 to not need another IPv4 block”: that requires either building > something to be IPv6-only, or deploying enough IPv6 to reduce the size of the > required NAT pool for your remaining IPv4 traffic. Both of those are hard and > expensive on an enterprise network, so most enterprises have opted to “buy” > so far.
I define meaningful progress in this context as making progress towards getting ipv6 widely enough deployed that ipv6-only sites can be reasonably useful in a general context. This is probably the best justification for this policy I've seen yet: On 11/11/19 3:35 PM, [email protected] wrote: > It also has an effect on enterprise customers whose CxO's do not want to > spend money on "unneeded" things. Once IT tells management that they > cannot get any more IPv4 addresses without placing some IPv6 in place, > they will get support for adding IPv6 from the bean counters. As long > as IPv6 is considered "Optional", a lot of Orgs will not spend the money > on it regardless of merit.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
