> On Sep 18, 2021, at 11:37 , John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote:
>
> It appears that Owen DeLong via NANOG <o...@delong.com> said:
>>> The cost of putting flyers in the bills rounds to zero, so yes, really. I
>>> expect these companies all have plans
>> to support v6 eventually, someday, once they're retired and replaced all of
>> the old junk that handles v6 poorly or
>> not at all, but you know about accountants and depreciation.
>>
>> Unless their infrastructure runs significantly on hardware and software
>> pre-2004 (unlikely), so does the cost of
>> adding IPv6 to their content servers. Especially if they’re using a CDN such
>> as Akamai.
>
> I wasn't talking about switches and routers. I was talking about every
> single piece of software and equipment that
> they use for support and marketing and customer service and all the other
> stuff that big companies do.
That doesn’t all have to change in order to make their services available on
IPv6 also.
IPv6 is not an all-or-nothing thing.
If your backend is all IPv4 all the time and you want to keep it that way, more
power to you. I encourage my competitors to try that.
However, if your customer-facing services are IPv4-only, that’s not hard to fix
in most cases and it’s really obnoxious not to do so.
> As I may have said once or twice, eventuallly it'll all be replaced so it
> works on IPv6 but we're not holding our breath.
I’m not holding my breath, but I’m also trying to argue reasonable approaches
and realistic solutions here.
You seem to be looking for excuses to claim the problem that needs to be solved
is harder than it is to justify not solving it.
Owen
