> On Jan 4, 2016, at 20:27 , George Metz <george.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 9:37 PM, Randy Bush <ra...@psg.com> wrote: > >> the more interesting question to me is: what can we, ops and ietf, do >> to make it operationally and financially easier for providers and >> enterprises to go to ipv6 instead of ipv4 nat? carrot not stick. >> >> randy >> > > The problem is, the only way to make it easier for providers and > enterprises to switch is to make it less scary looking and less complicated > sounding. That door closed when it was decided to go with hex and 128-bit > numbering. *I* know it's not nearly as bad as it seems and why it was done, > and their network folks by and large know it's not as bad as it seems, but > the people making the decisions to spend large sums of money upgrading > stuff that works just fine thank-you-very-much are looking at it and saying > "Ye gods... I sort of understand what IP means but that looks like an alien > language!" > > At which point the ugly duckling gets tossed out on it's ear before it has > a chance to become a swan.
I haven’t been involved in a single executive briefing where hex or the length of the addresses came up as an issue. This is a total red herring. Decision makers aren’t paying attention to what the addresses look like. Most of them likely wouldn’t recognize an IPv4 address if you showed them one. Owen
