On Aug 13, 2010, at 9:12 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote: > John et al, > > I have read many of your articles about the need to migrate to IPv6 > and how failure to do so will impact business continuity sometime in > the next 1 - 3 years. I've pressed our vendors to support IPv6 (note: > keep in mind we're a DDoS mitigation firm, our needs extend beyond > routers and switches) and found that it's a chicken and egg situation. > Vendors are neglecting to support IPv6 because there is "no demand." > I've pointed out your articles and demanded IPv6 support, some are > promising results in the next several months. We will see. > I was at a trade show several months back. I watched a series of people walk up to a vendor and each, in turn, asked about IPv6 support. The vendor told each, in turn, "You're the only one asking for it."
I walked up to the vendor and took my turn being told "You're the only one asking for it." I pointed out that I had seen the other people get the same answer. The sales person admitted he was caught red handed and explained "We're working on it, but, we don't have a definite date and so our marketing department has told us to downplay the demand and the importance until we have something more definitive." > Meanwhile, there are hosting companies, dedicated server companies, > etc. with /17 and /18 allocations who are either forging justification > or wildly abusing the use of that space outside of the declared need. Then those cases should be submitted to the fraud/abuse reporting process so they can be investigated and resolved. Owen
