> > All we can do is educate people on the importance of IPv6 uptake, we can > not force people to adopt it. >
At this stage of the game, networks and products that don't support V6 aren't likely to do so unless there is a forcing function to make them do it. Meaning money. On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 6:35 PM Christopher Hawker <ch...@thesysadmin.au> wrote: > John, > > If you feel that it is wasted time, you are welcome to not partake in the > discussion. Your remarks have been noted. > > It's all well and good to say that "more sites could have IPv6 if time > wasn't being wasted on 240/4" however we can only do so much regarding the > deployment of v6 within networks we manage. All we can do is educate people > on the importance of IPv6 uptake, we can not force people to adopt it. The > only way to rapidly accelerate the uptake of IPv6 is for networks is to > either offer better rates for v6 transit, or disable v4 connectivity > completely. > > Otherwise v6 connectivity is going to dawdle at the current rate it is. > > Regards, > Christopher Hawker > ------------------------------ > *From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces+chris=thesysadmin...@nanog.org> on behalf of > John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2024 10:11 AM > *To:* nanog@nanog.org <nanog@nanog.org> > *Subject:* Re: The Reg does 240/4 > > It appears that William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> said: > >On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 9:23 AM Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> > wrote: > >> Think how many more sites could have IPv6 capability already if this > wasted effort had been put into that, instead. > > > >"Zero-sum bias is a cognitive bias towards zero-sum thinking; > > Well, OK, think how many more sites could hav IPv6 if people weren't > wasting time arguing about this nonsense. > > R's, > John > > >
