nanog mailing list archives
Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008
From: David Conrad <david.conrad () nominum com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 08:30:12 -0700
On Jul 6, 2005, at 7:57 AM, Scott McGrath wrote:
IPv6 would have been adopted much sooner if the protocol had been written as an extension of IPv4 and in this case it could have slid in under the accounting departments radar since new equipment and applications wouldnot be needed.
IPv6 would have been adopted much sooner if it had solved a problem that caused significant numbers of end users or large scale ISPs real pain. If IPv6 had actually addressed one or more of routing scalability, multi-homing, or transparent renumbering all the hand wringing about how the Asians and Europeans are going to overtake the US would not occur. Instead, IPv6 dealt with a problem that, for the most part, does not immediately affect the US market but which (arguably) does affect the other regions. I guess you can, if you like, blame it on the accountants...
Rgds, -drc
Current thread:
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008, (continued)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 03)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 codewarrior (Jul 03)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 03)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Sean Doran (Jul 02)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Petri Helenius (Jul 03)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 David Conrad (Jul 06)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Scott McGrath (Jul 06)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Daniel Golding (Jul 06)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Alexei Roudnev (Jul 06)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 David Conrad (Jul 07)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Alexei Roudnev (Jul 07)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Joe Abley (Jul 07)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 John Payne (Jul 15)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Randy Bush (Jul 07)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Petri Helenius (Jul 07)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Alexei Roudnev (Jul 08)