|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008
My day to day is primarily supporting high-performance research computing
on the network side if I can add new functionality without incurring
accquisition costs or operational expenses AND not changing experimental
regimes in my area of responsibility that is a BIG win and one that
'slides past the accountants'. As it stands now IPv6 functionality
requires that the researchers replace their network connected instruments
many of which are purpose built. Some of the instruments are old (but
network attached) and are used in long term experiments and instrument
replacement would invalidate the results.
A interoperable IPv6 would have been adopted quickly in my environment
especially since it could have been added along with routine scheduled
network element software maintenance.
With the current IPv6 implementation I have to
1 - Get new (non-multihomed) address space from each of our upstreams
2 - Replace network elements with IPv6 compatible network elements and S/W
3 - Convince all the researchers to dump all their instruments and buy
new ones
4 - Retrain entire staff to support IPv6
No matter how hard I try I just am not going to be able to make any
cogent argument which will allow the implementation of IPv6 since it
appears to offer no benefits to the user community which in my case is
extremely well informed on technologies which will benefit their research.
The best I can hope for is IPv4 to IPv6 gateways.
Scott C. McGrath
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Edward Lewis wrote:
> 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.
>
|