Re: IPv6 Irony.

2015-10-22 Thread Masataka Ohta
Hugo Slabbert wrote: > Couldn't tell you: > > An error occurred while processing your request. > > Reference #50.b301e78e.1445526611.3125864 > Masataka: Is there an alt link? It sounds like it could be an > interesting read. Sorry, that should have been a temporally link and the permanent one

Re: IPv6 Irony.

2015-10-22 Thread Hugo Slabbert
5 7:26 AM To: Masataka Ohta Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: IPv6 Irony. Can anyone tell me if the document he linked is work reading? I am currently connected to an IPv6 only network and can't get to it. Thank you, - Nich Warren > -Original Message- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-b

RE: IPv6 Irony.

2015-10-22 Thread Nicholas Warren
Worth* Thank you, - Nich Warren > -Original Message- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Nicholas Warren > Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 7:26 AM > To: Masataka Ohta > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: RE: IPv6 Irony. > > Can anyone te

RE: IPv6 Irony.

2015-10-22 Thread Nicholas Warren
ber 22, 2015 1:43 AM > To: Mark Andrews > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: IPv6 Irony. > > Mark Andrews wrote: > > >>> Customer support, especially network troubleshootings and so on... > >> > >> Customer support for IPv6 costs a lot, at least b

Re: IPv6 Irony.

2015-10-21 Thread Masataka Ohta
Mark Andrews wrote: >>> Customer support, especially network troubleshootings and so on... >> >> Customer support for IPv6 costs a lot, at least because of: >> >> 1) Unnecessarily lengthy IP addresses, not recognized by most, if not >>all, customers >> >> 2) Lack of so promised aut

Re: IPv6 Irony.

2015-10-20 Thread Mark Andrews
In message <56263d2f.5000...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>, Masataka Ohta writes: > Max Tulyev wrote: > > > On our network, we had to spent times more money in people than in hardware. > > Certainly. > > > Customer support, especially network troubleshootings and so on... > > Customer support fo

Re: IPv6 Irony.

2015-10-20 Thread Masataka Ohta
Max Tulyev wrote: > On our network, we had to spent times more money in people than in hardware. Certainly. > Customer support, especially network troubleshootings and so on... Customer support for IPv6 costs a lot, at least because of: 1) Unnecessarily lengthy IP addresses, not recognized

Re: IPv6 Irony.

2015-10-20 Thread Sander Steffann
> I bet most money is spent on hiring software developers to change/review all > BSS/NSS systems to adopt to IPv6 ;) You should hire a consultant who can then push the software developers to hire people to change/review [..etc..] ;-) Cheers, Sander

Re: IPv6 Irony.

2015-10-20 Thread Rinse Kloek
I bet most money is spent on hiring software developers to change/review all BSS/NSS systems to adopt to IPv6 ;) Op 13-10-2015 om 13:11 schreef Paul S.: Anyone in a network administrator position struggling with IPv6 (and not willing to fix that out of their own initiative) has no business run

Re: IPv6 Irony.

2015-10-15 Thread Owen DeLong
Getting IPv6 to the masses without giving them the ability to get their IPv6 problems resolved seems not like a long-tail issue so much as a really poor choice of deployment plans. Just my $0.02. Owen > On Oct 12, 2015, at 20:17 , Ca By wrote: > > On Monday, October 12, 2015, Donn Lasher wr

Re: IPv6 Irony.

2015-10-13 Thread Ca By
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Yucong Sun wrote: > I don't understand the strategy here, how is that getting more traffic > going-through IPv6 help its adoption by the mass? IMHO it only helps > high-end, backbone type of network equipment producers sell more of > their big box with advanced I

Re: IPv6 Irony.

2015-10-13 Thread Yucong Sun
I don't understand the strategy here, how is that getting more traffic going-through IPv6 help its adoption by the mass? IMHO it only helps high-end, backbone type of network equipment producers sell more of their big box with advanced IPv6 license. It has absolutely no help with the long tail cr

Re: IPv6 Irony.

2015-10-13 Thread Paul S.
Anyone in a network administrator position struggling with IPv6 (and not willing to fix that out of their own initiative) has no business running any network. You should hire better staff. On 10/13/2015 06:56 PM, Max Tulyev wrote: On our network, we had to spent times more money in people tha

Re: IPv6 Irony.

2015-10-13 Thread Max Tulyev
Well, especially our copmany hire admins already familiar with IPv6. But yes, some of our friends company had to upgrade admins too. On 13.10.15 13:22, Stephen Satchell wrote: > On 10/13/2015 02:56 AM, Max Tulyev wrote: >> So upgrade hardware and network admins are NOT sufficient for IPv6 >> adopt

Re: IPv6 Irony.

2015-10-13 Thread Stephen Satchell
On 10/13/2015 02:56 AM, Max Tulyev wrote: So upgrade hardware and network admins are NOT sufficient for IPv6 adoption;) Was that a typo? Didn't you have to upgrade your network admins, too?

Re: IPv6 Irony.

2015-10-13 Thread Max Tulyev
On our network, we had to spent times more money in people than in hardware. Customer support, especially network troubleshootings and so on... So upgrade hardware and network admins are NOT sufficient for IPv6 adoption ;) On 13.10.15 06:17, Ca By wrote: > On Monday, October 12, 2015, Donn Lashe

Re: IPv6 Irony.

2015-10-12 Thread Ca By
On Monday, October 12, 2015, Donn Lasher wrote: > > Having just returned from NANOG65/ARIN36, and hearing about how far IPv6 > has come.. I find my experience with support today > Ironic. > > Oh wait.. > > Hi, my name is Donn, and I’m speaking for… myself. > > Irony is a cable provider, one of t

IPv6 Irony.

2015-10-12 Thread Donn Lasher
Having just returned from NANOG65/ARIN36, and hearing about how far IPv6 has come.. I find my experience with support today Ironic. Oh wait.. Hi, my name is Donn, and I’m speaking for… myself. Irony is a cable provider, one of the largest, and earliest adopters of IPv6, having ZERO IPv6 supp