On 4/May/19 17:17, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:
> Meaningful, yes, unfortunately 100% not representative (they also do U2M
> communication over IPv6 whenever possible).
>
> What I was meaning a more "realistic" deployments. Facebook is one well-known
> example (and if my memory is good, LinkedIn is another). For each of them you
> can easily find (?? tens of ??) thousands of other much more "classic"
> deployments, with less than 100 racks (often down to 10 or even less) and no
> IPv6 on roadmap, not even at the last place. I was thinking at those guys -
> does any of them think of changing the status-quo ?
Well, that's not unlike asking my Enterprise customers what their IPv6
plans are.
The major CDN's, I know, have gone IPv6 (U2M). There are a bunch of
other not-so-well-known CDN's out there, and I don't know what their
IPv6 plans are, or if they've done anything in that regard.
For regular folk just running a couple of racks in a data centre, no
clue, really. But for some reason or other, for those kind, based on
experience I've seen globally, I'd err (with a bit of conjecturbation)
on the side of them being less interested in IPv6 at present.
Mark.
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
