North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted

  • From: Chris L. Morrow
  • Date: Tue May 29 18:21:04 2007 

On Tue, 29 May 2007, Donald Stahl wrote:

> > and this means getting a good story in front of bean-counters about
> > expending opex/capex to do this transition work. Today the simplest answer
> > is: "if we expend Z dollars on new equipment, and A dollars on IT work we
> > will be able to capture X number of users for Y new service" or some
> > version of that story.
> IPv6 should simply be a requirement of all new equipment purchases (in
> large ISP's this should have been the case for a while now). The bean
> counters don't see a cost for new equipmnent just to run IPv6- they see
> the normal costs to upgrade older equipment. At least that's the way I'm
> doing my upgrades.

grr, it ain't just buying new equipment, it's IT work, its certification
of code/features/bugs, interoperatability. Provisioning, planning,
configmanagement.... training...

All of these things require opex/capex spend. You could buy a 'router'
that did ipv6 10 years ago, that doesn't mean that anyone planned on ever
deploying it.