Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

On 2/18/2015 11:04 AM, Phil Mayers wrote: On 18/02/15 09:29, Anfinsen, Ragnar wrote: A quick example; A good friend of mine is developing a smart fireplace which can be controlled via API's. He do use a 3. party development company to make the controller and API's. They did not even think of I

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

Hi, On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 04:04:32PM +, Phil Mayers wrote: > Don't get me started on SCADA systems. [..] > There is a woeful lack of ability in this bit of the industry. I'd love > a big player to come in and blow the market sky high. The next truly big exploit for these piles of junk will

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

On 18/02/15 09:29, Anfinsen, Ragnar wrote: A quick example; A good friend of mine is developing a smart fireplace which can be controlled via API's. He do use a 3. party development company to make the controller and API's. They did not even think of IPv6 until I did my 5 minute speech about the

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

On 18.02.15, 00.29, "Lorenzo Colitti" mailto:lore...@google.com>> wrote: Ragnar, what do you expect will get your network to move IPv6-only eventually? You likely won't still be running native IPv4 in 2030. How will you get there? Very good question, Lorenzo. I am actually not sure yet, but I k

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 5:39 AM, Anfinsen, Ragnar < ragnar.anfin...@altibox.no> wrote: > We are deploying IPv6 (soon) and we are not buying IPv4 for postponing > IPv6 rollout. Obviously, if buying IPv4 addresses costs less and is higher quality than something like MAP-E, then it makes sense to b

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

On 17.02.15, 16.19, "Ca By" mailto:cb.li...@gmail.com>> wrote: Simply: buying ipv4 not only feeds the global "digital divide", it actively hurts those that are trying to make a more inclusive global end-to-end internet. Users dont know or care about ipv4. Great businesses dont make decision o

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

On Monday, February 16, 2015, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Anfinsen, Ragnar < > ragnar.anfin...@altibox.no > > wrote: > >> >What does "IPv4 traffic lowers to...10%" mean here? >> > >> >Is this 10% meant to suggest that you'll wait until 90% of the >> >Internet has IPv

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

> On 13 Feb 2015, at 15:49, Phil Mayers wrote: > > But you're right, this has gone off-topic. The point was that IPv6 makes this > situation - person-to-person networking - better than in the NAT44 world, and > would improve e.g. internet gaming. Right, and a gamer will want to use something t

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

On 14.02.15, 19.39, "Erik Kline" wrote: >> From our perspective, doing investments on CGN/AFTR technology now can >>almost be comparable with buying address, as we must consider >>deprecation on the equipment anyways. If we can wait a bit longer and >>the IPv4 traffic lowers to for example 1

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

> A few things, 1) interest payments presupposes that one loans money to buy > addresses, 2) as long as 40% of all traffic is still IPv4 for DS enabled > customer, we need a fairly sizable CGN/AFTR setup. > > From our perspective, doing investments on CGN/AFTR technology now can almost > be com

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

On 13.02.15, 18.33, "Lorenzo Colitti" mailto:lore...@google.com>> wrote: On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 5:43 AM, Anfinsen, Ragnar mailto:ragnar.anfin...@altibox.no>> wrote: Reducing the price of the service is not an option for the sales people, unless there are other benefits, and right now there are

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

On 13/02/15 14:37, Thomas Schäfer wrote: Why a discussion to drill the firewall with very tricky things? (it's sound to me like the same sh... stun and other legacy ipv4 horrors.) In my opinion the firewall should be configurable (unfortunately DTAG-speedport-series, including the hybrid-model

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

On 13.02.15, 15.29, "Tore Anderson" wrote: >* Anfinsen, Ragnar > >> My goal with my question was to find sensible arguments for keeping >>IPv4 >> as a native service for now > >Maybe I'm being dense, but you seem to already have all the answers to >this question yourself? For example: > >- «T

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

Why a discussion to drill the firewall with very tricky things? (it's sound to me like the same sh... stun and other legacy ipv4 horrors.) In my opinion the firewall should be configurable (unfortunately DTAG-speedport-series, including the hybrid-modell dsl/lte can't) by upnp or by the user.

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

On 13/02/15 14:22, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 02:12:31PM +, Phil Mayers wrote: As above, depends on how they're using the socket API. As a rule for UDP connections, you actually have to put *more* work in to see ICMP errors. It's certainly possible to ignore them.

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

* Anfinsen, Ragnar > My goal with my question was to find sensible arguments for keeping IPv4 > as a native service for now Maybe I'm being dense, but you seem to already have all the answers to this question yourself? For example: - «The cost/benefit of doing anything else than keeping IPv4 as

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 02:12:31PM +, Phil Mayers wrote: > As above, depends on how they're using the socket API. As a rule for > UDP connections, you actually have to put *more* work in to see ICMP > errors. It's certainly possible to ignore them. FWIW, at least on Linux, if you keep doing se

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

On 13/02/15 13:27, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: Packet reaches HGW2, which has no flow state, and is dropped. ICMP error message might be created. In case of ICMP error message, U1 should ignore this. That's an application-layer issue. It all depends on how they're talking to the socket API. The

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

Tore, In an ideal world, all your statements are true, and for us who has been roaming the IPv6 forums and meetings the last year knows all this. However, the business side does not see it the same way we do, and that is something we all have to deal with and why we are moving so slowly. Reduc

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

On Fri, 13 Feb 2015, Phil Mayers wrote: None of this should be a problem for non-NATed IPv6. The absence of NAT will mean an ICMP error doesn't "block" a NAT translation - there's no such thing to block - so a CPE can send errors or not. Ah, thanks for pointing that out. So currently there a

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

On 13/02/15 11:26, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Fri, 13 Feb 2015, Thomas Schäfer wrote: and the practice in Germany to blocking all IPv6-inbound traffic the result is the problem for some gamers. So I guess applications should use the same technique as one does to traverse NAT44:s, ie both en

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Tore Anderson wrote: > How to introduce it to existing customers, you might ask? Maybe just > ask them? Send an SMS saying 20% off your next bill if you give up your > IPv4 address (and enable IPv6?), pointing out it's not binding and can > be re-enabled at any tim

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

* Anfinsen, Ragnar > On 12.02.15, 22.53, "Tore Anderson" wrote: > > >There's a non-zero amount of end customers who *do* care about IPv6. > >After all, you do have a opt-in service which several thousand of > >your customers did actually opt in to - so it would seem to me that > >several thousan

Re: Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > I agree. Do you have a better suggestion? Of course not. While I personally tend to DROP instead of REJECT, both are far from ideal in the real world. Richard

Re: Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

On Fri, 13 Feb 2015, Richard Hartmann wrote: On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: so I guess clients need to try a few times and not listen to the (initial) ICMP messages until the "hole" is open. That sounds slightly broken as well. I agree. Do you have a better sug

Re: Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > so I guess clients need to try a few times and not listen to the (initial) > ICMP messages until the "hole" is open. That sounds slightly broken as well. Richard

Re: Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

On Fri, 13 Feb 2015, Thomas Schäfer wrote: and the practice in Germany to blocking all IPv6-inbound traffic the result is the problem for some gamers. So I guess applications should use the same technique as one does to traverse NAT44:s, ie both ends of the connection send packets to each ot

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: > On the contrary, it gives you a great single point to log everything. > I'm sure PST will be thrilled. Plus, "too expensive" is only a problem for the carriers, not for the vendors. Adding a way to dump the state of the CGN should b

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

On 13.02.15, 10.03, "Gert Doering" wrote: >Hi, > >On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 02:37:09PM -0800, Erik Kline wrote: >> Sure this potential Data Retention Directive will not be IPv6-specific >> and somehow exempt IPv4? > >I read the original concern as "if they force DR on us, and we run a >CGN, it wi

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

On 12.02.15, 23.37, "Erik Kline" wrote: >> Appreciate your feedback, but as long as the majority of Norwegian >>content providers does not move on IPv6, including governmental sites, >>and the potential risk of the Norwegian government implementing some >>sort of Data Retention Directive, it

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

On 12.02.15, 22.53, "Tore Anderson" wrote: >There's a non-zero amount of end customers who *do* care about IPv6. >After all, you do have a opt-in service which several thousand of your >customers did actually opt in to - so it would seem to me that several >thousands of your own customers disag

Re: SV: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

Am 12.02.2015 um 19:59 schrieb Eric Vyncke (evyncke): Is it related to the paranoid option of blocking all inbound traffic? To mimick NAT44 ? I afraid so. Regarding to http://download.microsoft.com/download/A/C/4/AC4484B8-AA16-446F-86F8-BDFC498F8732/Xbox%20One%20Technical%20Details.docx "Ev

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

Thus wrote Gert Doering (g...@space.net): > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 02:37:09PM -0800, Erik Kline wrote: > > Sure this potential Data Retention Directive will not be IPv6-specific > > and somehow exempt IPv4? > > I read the original concern as "if they force DR on us, and we run a > CGN, it will n

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

Hi, On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 02:37:09PM -0800, Erik Kline wrote: > Sure this potential Data Retention Directive will not be IPv6-specific > and somehow exempt IPv4? I read the original concern as "if they force DR on us, and we run a CGN, it will not be possible / too expensive / ... to log the NA

RE: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

Ops list Subject: Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6... On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 5:33 AM, mailto:olaf.bonn...@telekom.de>> wrote: I wonder if it would make a difference if big eyeballs ISPs ("among the 3 largest in a country") would start talking to c

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

> Appreciate your feedback, but as long as the majority of Norwegian content > providers does not move on IPv6, including governmental sites, and the > potential risk of the Norwegian government implementing some sort of Data > Retention Directive, it makes sense to by addresses instead of doing

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

> On Feb 12, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 5:33 AM, > wrote: > I wonder if it would make a difference if big eyeballs ISPs ("among the > 3 largest in a country") would start talking to content providers, telling > them "hey

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 5:33 AM, wrote: > I wonder if it would make a difference if big eyeballs ISPs ("among the > 3 largest in a country") would start talking to content providers, telling > them "hey, you know, your content is quite popular with our users, but > since it's v4-only, we need to

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

* Anfinsen, Ragnar > On 12.02.15, 12.24, "Tore Anderson" wrote: > > >Can you really with a straight face today call your product «premium», > >when it lacks the IPv6 support at least two of your largest competitors > >offer? > > Keep in mind that end customers don't care about IP addresses but

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

>> I wonder if it would make a difference if big eyeballs ISPs ("among the >> 3 largest in a country") would start talking to content providers, telling >> them "hey, you know, your content is quite popular with our users, but >> since it's v4-only, we need to seriously throttle it to avoid overloa

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

On 12.02.15, 14.14, "Gert Doering" wrote: >I wonder if it would make a difference if big eyeballs ISPs ("among the >3 largest in a country") would start talking to content providers, telling >them "hey, you know, your content is quite popular with our users, but >since it's v4-only, we need to

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

On 12.02.15, 12.24, "Tore Anderson" wrote: >IPv6 doesn't relieve you of IPv4 growth pains until you can start >shutting down IPv4 in parts of your network, and reassign those >reclaimed IPv4 addresses to more valuable end-points (such as the CPEs). > >However, once you have implemented IPv6 (an

Re: SV: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

Is it related to the paranoid option of blocking all inbound traffic? To mimick NAT44 ? -éric On 12/02/15 14:00, "Thomas Schäfer" wrote: >Am 12.02.2015 um 13:40 schrieb erik.tarald...@telenor.com: >>> This might be so in Norway. In German customer portals the gamers >>>mostly >>> demand ipv4 (p

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

Am 12.02.2015 um 15:01 schrieb Anfinsen, Ragnar: Sure, but this requires our product department to look at IPv4 as legacy and stop caring about customers who do gaming and have their own servers and such. No. We should help them to migrate their games and own servers to IPv6. One argument (it

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

On 12.02.15, 10.58, "Bjørn Mork" wrote: >As Steinar pointed out: You can help speeding up the process by enabling >native IPv6 access for as many as possible (all?) of your subscribers >today. > >I am sure you know that you can't completely skip the dual-stack phase, >and that's what you need t

RE: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

list Subject: Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6... Hi, On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 01:11:21PM +, Anfinsen, Ragnar wrote: > However, we are there soon, but it does not change the fact that we > still need to keep our IPv4 running, due to the slow movement o

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

On 12.02.15, 09.16, "Mikael Abrahamsson" wrote: >On Wed, 11 Feb 2015, Anfinsen, Ragnar wrote: > >> So, any thoughts on this topic, and any qualified guesses on when we no >> longer need to do IPv4 and still be able to call our internet product >> premium? > >Depends. Are you selling Internet

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

On 12.02.15, 01.05, "Ca By" mailto:cb.li...@gmail.com>> wrote: I always cringe when folks say premium internet. Internet is always "best effort", we are all always reduced to the least common denominator for network quality. Sure, but doing CGN or equivalent reduces the best effort of IPv4 ev

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

Hi, On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 01:11:21PM +, Anfinsen, Ragnar wrote: > However, we are there soon, but it does not change the fact that we still > need to keep our IPv4 running, due to the slow movement of many content > providers. Amen. Frustrating as it is. I wonder if it would make a diff

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

On 12.02.15, 01.11, "Steinar H. Gunderson" wrote: >On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 08:42:00PM +, Anfinsen, Ragnar wrote: >> I am working with my management team to implement IPv6, but I got an >> interesting question from one of the managers; Why do we need more IPv4 >>if >> we are moving toward

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

* Thomas Schäfer > This might be so in Norway. In German customer portals the gamers > mostly demand ipv4 (public ipv4 address to their home) instead of > DS-Lite. They have already native IPv6 but avm was forced to allow > "teredo" over DS and DS-lite - because xbox has problems with native > IPv

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

On 12/02/15 11:05, Tore Anderson wrote: * Ole Troan When will IPv6 provide me as an end-user with more "value" than what my current NATed IPv4 connection does? If you, like me, like to play games online, and at some point find yourself googling for the cause of connectivity problems (it is ju

Re: SV: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

Am 12.02.2015 um 13:40 schrieb erik.tarald...@telenor.com: This might be so in Norway. In German customer portals the gamers mostly demand ipv4 (public ipv4 address to their home) instead of DS-Lite. They have already native IPv6 but avm was forced to allow "teredo" over DS and DS-lite - because

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

On Thu, 12 Feb 2015, erik.tarald...@telenor.com wrote: This might be so in Norway. In German customer portals the gamers mostly demand ipv4 (public ipv4 address to their home) instead of DS-Lite. They have already native IPv6 but avm was forced to allow "teredo" over DS and DS-lite - because xbo

Re: SV: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

On 12/02/15 12:40, erik.tarald...@telenor.com wrote: This might be so in Norway. In German customer portals the gamers mostly demand ipv4 (public ipv4 address to their home) instead of DS-Lite. They have already native IPv6 but avm was forced to allow "teredo" over DS and DS-lite - because xbox h

SV: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

> This might be so in Norway. In German customer portals the gamers mostly > demand ipv4 (public ipv4 address to their home) instead of DS-Lite. They > have already native IPv6 but avm was forced to allow "teredo" over DS > and DS-lite - because xbox has problems with native IPv6. > > xbox is no go

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

Am 12.02.2015 um 12:05 schrieb Tore Anderson: And then if the gamer then starts googling this «IPv6» thing he might find out that it abolishes the hated NAT stuff entirely, and suddenly Microsoft's statement makes perfect sense to him, and he will actually end up actively *wanting* IPv6. This

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

* Anfinsen, Ragnar > I am working with my management team to implement IPv6, but I got an > interesting question from one of the managers; Why do we need more > IPv4 if we are moving towards IPv6? IPv6 doesn't relieve you of IPv4 growth pains until you can start shutting down IPv4 in parts of yo

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

Mikael, >> But that's "better value" by making IPv4 work less good. and I'll postulate >> that we can make A+P / shared IPv4 work good enough that end-users who are >> trained to live behind a NATs will not notice. > > Problem with that is that this doesn't work with anything that doesn't have

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

* Ole Troan > When will IPv6 provide me as an end-user with more "value" than what > my current NATed IPv4 connection does? If you, like me, like to play games online, and at some point find yourself googling for the cause of connectivity problems (it is just *so* *extremely* infuriating to have

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

On Thu, 12 Feb 2015, Ole Troan wrote: But that's "better value" by making IPv4 work less good. and I'll postulate that we can make A+P / shared IPv4 work good enough that end-users who are trained to live behind a NATs will not notice. Problem with that is that this doesn't work with anything

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

On 2015-02-12 01:41, Ole Troan wrote: But that's "better value" by making IPv4 work less good. and I'll postulate that we can make A+P / shared IPv4 work good enough that end-users who are trained to live behind a NATs will not notice. Home end-users trained to live behind NATs are users traine

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:41:05AM +0100, Ole Troan wrote: > But that's "better value" by making IPv4 work less good. and I'll > postulate that we can make A+P / shared IPv4 work good enough that > end-users who are trained to live behind a NATs will not notice. You mean, trained to see their dow

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:00:21AM +0100, Ole Troan wrote: > >> So, any thoughts on this topic, and any qualified guesses on when we no > >> longer need to do IPv4 and still be able to call our internet product > >> premium? > > When will IPv6 provide me as an end-user with more "value" than wha

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

"Anfinsen, Ragnar" writes: > So, any thoughts on this topic, and any qualified guesses on when we no > longer need to do IPv4 and still be able to call our internet product > premium? As Steinar pointed out: You can help speeding up the process by enabling native IPv6 access for as many as pos

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

Hi, On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:41:05AM +0100, Ole Troan wrote: > >> When will IPv6 provide me as an end-user with more "value" than what my > >> current NATed IPv4 connection does? > > > > Today! [..] > > But that's "better value" by making IPv4 work less good. and I'll > postulate that we can

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

Gert, So, any thoughts on this topic, and any qualified guesses on when we no longer need to do IPv4 and still be able to call our internet product premium? >> >> When will IPv6 provide me as an end-user with more "value" than what my >> current NATed IPv4 connection does? > >

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

Hi! [Gert wrote] > (I'm hearing more and more reports that the CGNs deployed by big german > cable ISPs are breaking SIP and IPSEC to IPv4-only targets for their > customers...) Yes, they do break that. We had one case, where we replaced IPsec with OpenVPN to overcome that issue. KabelBW is sell

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

Hi, On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:00:21AM +0100, Ole Troan wrote: > >> So, any thoughts on this topic, and any qualified guesses on when we no > >> longer need to do IPv4 and still be able to call our internet product > >> premium? > > When will IPv6 provide me as an end-user with more "value" tha

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

>> So, any thoughts on this topic, and any qualified guesses on when we no >> longer need to do IPv4 and still be able to call our internet product >> premium? When will IPv6 provide me as an end-user with more "value" than what my current NATed IPv4 connection does? Best regards, Ole signat

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

On Wed, 11 Feb 2015, Anfinsen, Ragnar wrote: So, any thoughts on this topic, and any qualified guesses on when we no longer need to do IPv4 and still be able to call our internet product premium? Depends. Are you selling Internet access for data center hosting, for business or for residentia

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 08:42:00PM +, Anfinsen, Ragnar wrote: > I am working with my management team to implement IPv6, but I got an > interesting question from one of the managers; Why do we need more IPv4 if > we are moving towards IPv6? Maybe because the move is going too slowly? Case in

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

On Wednesday, February 11, 2015, Anfinsen, Ragnar < ragnar.anfin...@altibox.no> wrote: > Hi guys. > > I am working with my management team to implement IPv6, but I got an > interesting question from one of the managers; Why do we need more IPv4 if > we are moving towards IPv6? > > A quick backgrou

Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

Hello, Le 11 févr. 2015 à 21:42, Anfinsen, Ragnar a écrit : > Hi guys. > > I am working with my management team to implement IPv6, but I got an > interesting question from one of the managers; Why do we need more IPv4 if > we are moving towards IPv6? > > A quick background; We are having disc

Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

Hi guys. I am working with my management team to implement IPv6, but I got an interesting question from one of the managers; Why do we need more IPv4 if we are moving towards IPv6? A quick background; We are having discussions around IPv4 and IPv6 and the need to eventually buy more IPv4 addre