On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 8:06 AM Brian Knight <m...@knight-networks.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 29, 2019, at 5:28 PM, Mike Hammett <na...@ics-il.net> wrote: > > > "So if they do care about IPv6 connectivity, they haven’t communicated > that to us." > > Nor will they, but that doesn't mean IPv6 isn't important. > > > Personally, I don’t disagree. We engineers do what we can to support IPv6: > We build it into our tooling and switch it on in our gear. Our network is > dual stack v4/v6 and has been for quite a while. But with other tools we > don’t control, and particularly in terms of business process, we have a > ways to go, and it’s not a priority. > > I want IPv6 to succeed, really. But the global end game picture looks > more and more bleak to me. > I can see how your situation is bleak That said, google see nearly 40% of their traffic on ipv6 in the usa , growth trend looks strong https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html And Comcast (71%), Charter (52%), VZ (85%), ATT (60 and 78%) , and T-Mobile (95%) have the majority of their subs on ipv6 https://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/ Sadly, ipv6 is creating a bifurcation of the internet. Scale shops have v6, and non-scale shops don’t. The big players are pulling away, and that makes things bleak for the folks just trying to tread water in ipv4. > > Frankly, I'm surprised anti-IPv6 people still have employment. > > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > Midwest-IX > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > > -Brian > > > ------------------------------ > *From: *"Brian Knight" <m...@knight-networks.com> > *To: *"Mark Andrews" <ma...@isc.org> > *Cc: *"nanog" <nanog@nanog.org> > *Sent: *Friday, November 29, 2019 10:29:17 AM > *Subject: *Re: RIPE our of IPv4 > > > > On Nov 27, 2019, at 4:04 PM, Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org> wrote: > > > > > > > >> On 28 Nov 2019, at 06:08, Brian Knight <m...@knight-networks.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On 2019-11-26 17:11, Ca By wrote: > >>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 12:15 AM Sabri Berisha <sa...@cluecentral.net> > >>> wrote: > >>>> ----- On Nov 26, 2019, at 1:36 AM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us > wrote: > >> > >> [snip] > >>>> there is no ROI at this point. In this kind of environment there > needs to > >>>> be a strong case to invest the capex to support IPv6. > >>>> IPv6 must be supported on the CxO level in order to be deployed. > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Sabri, (Badum tsss) MBA > >>> I see....well let me translate it you MBA-eese for you: > >>> FANG deployed ipv6 nearly 10 years ago. Since deploying ipv6, the > cohort > >>> experienced 300% CAGR. Also, everything is mobile, and all mobile > providers > >>> in the usa offer ipv6 by default in most cases. Latency! Scale! As your > >>> company launches its digital transformation iot 2020 virtualization > >>> container initiatives, ipv6 will be an integral part of staying > relevant on > >>> the blockchain. Also, FANG did it nearly 10 years ago. Big content > and > >>> big eyeballs are on ipv6, ipv4 is a winnowing longtail of irrelevance > and > >>> iot botnets. > >> > >> None of which matters a damn to almost all of my business eyeball > customers. They can still get from our network to 100% of all Internet > content & services via IPv4 in 2019. > > > > No you can’t. You can’t reach the machine I’m typing on via IPv4 and it > is ON THE INTERNET. It is directly reachable via IPv6. Selling Internet > connectivity without IPv6 should be considered fraud these days. Don’t > > you believe in “Truth in Advertising”? > > I had meant to write “They can still get from our network to 100% of all > Internet content and services that matter to them [our customers] via > IPv4...” > > 0% of my IPv4-only customers have opened tickets saying they cannot reach > some service that is only IPv6 accessible. So if they do care about IPv6 > connectivity, they haven’t communicated that to us. > > > Mark Andrews, ISC > > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW > <https://www.google.com/maps/search/1+Seymour+St.,+Dundas+Valley,+NSW?entry=gmail&source=g> > 2117, Australia > > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org > > > > Thanks, > > -Brian > >
