On 2019-11-26 17:11, Ca By wrote:
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 12:15 AM Sabri Berisha <sa...@cluecentral.net>
----- On Nov 26, 2019, at 1:36 AM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
there is no ROI at this point. In this kind of environment there needs
be a strong case to invest the capex to support IPv6.
IPv6 must be supported on the CxO level in order to be deployed.
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
experienced 300% CAGR. Also, everything is mobile, and all mobile
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
the blockchain. Also, FANG did it nearly 10 years ago. Big content
big eyeballs are on ipv6, ipv4 is a winnowing longtail of irrelevance
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. 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.