Care to explain because the alternative seems pretty self-evident. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jose Luis Rodriguez" <jlrodriguez@gmail.com> To: "Jean St-Laurent" <jean@ddostest.me> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Friday, November 26, 2021 8:16:53 AM Subject: Re: IPv6 and CDN's Well … YMMV. We’ve been running v6 for years, and it didn’t really make a dent in spend or boxes or rate of v4 depletion. Big part of the problem in our neck of the woods is millions of v4-only terminals … as well as large customer/gov bids requiring tons of v4 address space.
On Nov 26, 2021, at 07:04, Jean St-Laurent via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
With a kicking ass pitch
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+jean=ddostest.me@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Mark Tinka Sent: November 26, 2021 5:52 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 and CDN's
On 11/3/21 22:13, Max Tulyev wrote:
Implementing IPv6 reduces costs for CGNAT. You will have (twice?) less traffic flow through CGNAT, so cheaper hardware and less IPv4 address space. Isn't it?
How to express that in numbers CFO can take to the bank?
Mark.