Sep 25 20:40 2016, Tony Langdon wrote to Michiel van der Vlist:
MvV>> Ik like the positive attitude of seeing it an an opportunity to MvV>> start with IPv6, but the reality is that they are too late. Not only MvV>> should IPv6 have been the dominant protocol by now, it should have MvV>> een the dominant protocol before the world ran out of IPv4 MvV>> addresses.
TL> True, it should have been done.
I think, the delay of deployment is mostly caused my the management not seeing any benefit, i.e. business opportunity, for offering IPv6 at the moment. The deployment requires some investment, and if there's no budget, network engineering can't do anything about that, besides complaining. The management will notice the issue when the market demands IPv6, i.e. when users have to deal with IPv6-only web servers and services. Then everything has to be done in a very short time, meaning a lot of stress, mistakes and additional costs. It's going to be a rough ride for the ISP/carrier and the customer. A management, which understands how the internet works, would have started a while ago for a smooth deployment and lower costs. Some see just the revenue of the next two quarters, others projecting strategies for several years in advance.
MvV>> That's what I meant when I said IPv6 should have been introduced MvV>> much earlier. So that by now all those child diseases would have MvV>> gone.
TL> I don't know how they managed it. :) I've never had any issue TL> setting up web servers for IPv6.
Me neither ;)
BTW, in case someone needs a secondary nameserver with IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, drop me a netmail.
