|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: IPv6 push doesn't have much pull in U.S
:) True, but, there's actually another angle to consider. If there is pressure to adopt IPv6 rapidly in a given region, and that given region also happens to drive broadband technology evolution, and North America ends up being dependent on cheap equipment primarily driven by overseas standards.. It is conceivable that North America will have a substantial economic argument for adopting IPv6 on the trailing edge, maybe just past the leading edge if you have additional factors playing into the decision. Or one may just be oblivious to the emergence of IPv6 like it has been to up to this point, and sustain that without any harm whatsoever. The key questions are When will who you want to talk to speak IPv6? When will we have a need (and be willing to pay for) addressing every device individually and directly without intermediary? When will we have a need (and be willing to pay for) pervasive crypto & "identity"? Each person/carrier/user/whatever will answer these differently, and it has a lot to do with how you work, who you do business with, and what economic pressures may apply, and whether or not you can cope with an intermediary or non-native setup. There is no globally correct answer. Or that's at least my view. Flame away. Thanks, Christian > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Iljitsch van Beijnum > Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2005 5:33 AM > To: Fergie (Paul Ferguson) > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: IPv6 push doesn't have much pull in U.S > > > > On 16-jul-2005, at 1:57, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote: > > > Someone's been listening: > > Listening to what, exactly? Still nonsense about address space > distribution. > > And I'm sure Sprint and Verio (MCI/Worldcom/UUNET too? I have a > tunnel from them in the Netherlands, not sure what they do in > the US) > are happy to hear that they're not "major U.S. service provider[s]" > since none of those offers IPv6, right? > > Also, I mostly disagree with their conclusion: > > Currently only a handful of U.S. technologists need to worry about > IPv6--those that work in the federal government, carriers, > researchers and networking vendors. If you're not in one of those > categories, the IPv6 bug won't reach you for years to come. > > Software vendors need to look at IPv6. The OS and router > vendors have > their stuff in place. The networks will follow when the time is > right, but none of it means anything if applications can't work over > IPv6. > > I'm not saying everyone has to love IPv6, but please get those pesky > facts straight... > ***** The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. 162
|