nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 and CDN's
From: Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa>
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2021 18:24:03 +0200
On 11/27/21 17:07, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Because lengthy IPv6 addresses mean a lot more opex than IPv4.
I disagree - it can be more opex if you want to run both together, but less so if you choose one; largely IPv6, but also largely IPv4 if you don't intend to be in the game for the rest of your life.
My point was that there might not obviously be a linear relationship between less CG-NAT and more native IPv6, that makes a material difference to the CFO's Excel spreadsheet, off the bat.
Mark.
Current thread:
- RE: IPv6 and CDN's, (continued)
- RE: IPv6 and CDN's Jean St-Laurent via NANOG (Nov 26)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Mark Tinka (Nov 27)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Grzegorz Janoszka (Nov 27)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 27)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Michael Thomas (Nov 27)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 27)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Christopher Morrow (Nov 27)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 27)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Mark Tinka (Nov 27)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Masataka Ohta (Nov 27)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Mark Tinka (Nov 27)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Masataka Ohta (Nov 27)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Fred Baker (Nov 27)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Masataka Ohta (Nov 27)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Mark Tinka (Nov 28)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Masataka Ohta (Nov 28)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Mark Tinka (Nov 28)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Masataka Ohta (Nov 28)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Mark Tinka (Nov 28)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Masataka Ohta (Nov 28)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Mark Tinka (Nov 28)
