nanog mailing list archives
Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008
From: Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis () neustar biz>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 11:56:44 -0400
At 10:57 -0400 7/6/05, 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 would not be needed.
Sliding anything past the accountants is bad practice. Is the goal to run IPv6 or to run a communications medium to support society? If it costs $1M to adopt IPv6 in the next quarter, what would you take the $1M from? (I used to work at a science research center. Having a good network wasn't the goal, doing science was. Without good science, there would be no FY++ budget for a better network.)
The Internet serves society, society owes nothing to the Internet. Members of this list may prioritize communications technology, other members of society may prioritize different interests and concerns. That is why IPv6 must offer a benefit greater than it's cost.
-- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar If you knew what I was thinking, you'd understand what I was saying.
Current thread:
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008, (continued)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 David Meyer (Jul 07)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 David Conrad (Jul 07)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Eric Rescorla (Jul 07)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Randy Bush (Jul 07)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Joe Abley (Jul 06)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Iljitsch van Beijnum (Jul 06)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Daniel Roesen (Jul 06)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 David Conrad (Jul 06)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Steven M. Bellovin (Jul 06)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Sean Doran (Jul 08)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Iljitsch van Beijnum (Jul 06)
- Message not available
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Jay R. Ashworth (Jul 06)