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" <jlrodrig...@gmail.com> To: "Jean St-Laurent" <j...@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...@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. >
