In message <A24F7CF2-0CD8-4EBA-A211-07BC36988A87@beckman.org>, Mel Beckman writ es:
Limited municipal budgets is all I can say. IPv6 has a cost, and if they can put it off till later then that's often good politics.
-mel via cell
IPv4 has a cost as well. May as well just go IPv6-only from day one and not pay the IPv4 tax at all. The cost difference between providing IPv6 + IPv4 or just IPv4 from day 1 should be zero. There should be no re-tooling. You just select products that support both initially. It's not like products that support both are more expensive all other things being equal. Mark
On Jul 10, 2015, at 2:42 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote: I working on a large airport WiFi deployment right now. IPv6 is "allowed = for in the future" but not configured in the short term. With less
In message <CAL9jLabA5nO6YQ99CRhDgRTHTSB0VgP3GDNeu-VU2-4R_1_pLQ@mail.gmail.com> , Christopher Morrow writes: than 10,=
000 ephemeral users, we don't expect users to demand IPv6 until most mobile= devices and apps come ready to use IPv6 by default.
'we don't expect users to demand ipv6'
aside from #nanog folks, who 'demands' ipv6?
Don't they actually 'demand' "access to content on the internet" ?
Since you seem to have a greenfield deployment, why NOT just put v6 in place on day0? retrofitting it is surely going to cost time/materials and probably upgrades to gear that could be avoided by doing it in the initial installation, right?
+1 and you will most probably see about 50% of the traffic being IPv6 if you do so. There is lots of IPv6 capable equipment out there just waiting to see a RA.
Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
-- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org