Re: [v6ops] FYI: Microsoft's latest on CLAT

> until it can be shown it will same them enough money to justify the transition cost.

Yes.
But the absence of big obstacles (like DHCP absence or multi-homing broken design) is important too.

Ed/
-----Original Message-----
From: v6ops <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Bob Hinden
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2024 18:51
To: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org; Ole Troan <otroan=40employees.org@dmarc.ietf.org>; Tommy Jensen <Jensen.Thomas@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] FYI: Microsoft's latest on CLAT

Jen,

> On Mar 11, 2024, at 4:45 AM, Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 5:49 PM Vasilenko Eduard 
> <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> wrote:
>> IMHO: IPv6-mostly would not be enough incentive to improve Enterprise miserable IPv6 adoption.
> 
> Indeed it would not. IPv6-mostly deployment model is not an incentive.
> It's a mechanism to reach a goal. That goal needs to exist first.
> Most enterprise networks are not going to deploy until they run out of IPv4.
> Some of them might not reach that phase in any foreseeable future. To 
> be honest, I do not think it's a problem.
> When those networks face IPv4 exhaustion, the reasons for delaying
> IPv6 adoption magically fade into insignificance, but not until then.

I agree, and would add that IMHO enterprises who are fine with 1918 addresses, won’t transition to IPv6 [Only/Mostly] until it can be shown it will same them enough money to justify the transition cost.

Bob

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
v6ops@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops