[ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Michel Py
michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us
Sat Oct 5 23:16:39 CEST 2019
> Carlos Friaças wrote : > Admitting that "zealotism" is not a got thing might be a good 1st step. I did not create the IPv4 zealots, I joined their ranks by economic necessity. I do not like it, but I need the IPv4 ecosystem for 20 more years and I am not going to let the IPv6 zealots destroy my business. >> 3 months ago, I turned DECNET off on my network. It was actually not even an IT/network decision; customer >> decided they were done with a product, and we de-commissioned the tools with DECNET. Business decision. >> We run OS/2 Warp, MS-DOS, Windows 95, HPUX, Solaris, Windows 2000, and I probably forget some. > So, hardly any IPv6 there :-) 100% IPv4 :-) > If a new project pops up that will need 10x the public address space you have... good luck. I already have several times more public space than I need. And, $20/IP is nothing in the cost of a new project. Michel.
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]