On Sun, Jun 12, 2016, at 16:44, Jack wrote: > But today, you fixed them, whatever they were (hardware ? network design > ? you worked on this issue)
You just failed to mention the 2 most important: - management - money Unless you manage to bring in money by using IPv6 and *NOT* IPv4, it remains either a "submarine project" or an explicit NO-GO. For me, I'm pretty happy to get to the point where I am : services started "from scratch" during the last 3 years are IPv6 "active by default" (unless the client decides to go IPv6-only). I may even get a chance to go beyond the "one-man show" and convince the rest of the operations-team to think IPv6 (en enforce it wherever possible). But the problem remains with the money-making services, which is basically "IPv4-based access" (a.k.a. no IPv4 = no money in). A state where "no IPv6 = no money in" seems to be light-years away. If I want to keep deploying IPv6 I *must* be effective enough so that it doesn't "take up valuable work time" (read time spent on v4-ony stuff). > So, the problem is gone by now. ???? (see above) So yes, some people may have explicit no-go for IPv6 deployment. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
