On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 2:39 PM John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote: > It appears that Owen DeLong via NANOG <o...@delong.com> said: > >> The cost of putting flyers in the bills rounds to zero, so yes, really. > I expect these companies all have plans > >to support v6 eventually, someday, once they're retired and replaced all > of the old junk that handles v6 poorly or > >not at all, but you know about accountants and depreciation. > > > >Unless their infrastructure runs significantly on hardware and software > pre-2004 (unlikely), so does the cost of > >adding IPv6 to their content servers. Especially if they’re using a CDN > such as Akamai. > > I wasn't talking about switches and routers. I was talking about every > single piece of software and equipment that > they use for support and marketing and customer service and all the other > stuff that big companies do. > > As I may have said once or twice, eventuallly it'll all be replaced so it > works on IPv6 but we're not holding our breath. >
Glad you noted this. Thinking this was/is purely a hardware cycle problem related to normal/forced upgrade strategies. On that point, most hardware I know of from 2004 in larger networks is long fully depreciated and sweating assets 15+ years can happen, but I don't personally think this is the biggest issue. As you noted John, its the plethora of software, support systems, tooling, and most important in many environments - legacy customer management and provisioning systems that can be the limiting factor. I recall looking back when leading IPv6 turn-up, those were the biger problems to solve for. Often such systems are extremely expensive to touch and working on them required prioritization against direct revenue generating projects (opportunity cost) . Replacing routers was just a money problem. I am by far not saying I agree with choices made by hold-outs, but I also understand this is for many, not just an engineering problem to solve. regards, Victor K > > R's, > John >