[82047] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Fri Jul 8 15:41:27 2005
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0507061040130.23768@ls02.fas.harvard.edu>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
From: David Conrad <david.conrad@nominum.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 08:30:12 -0700
To: Scott McGrath <mcgrath@fas.harvard.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
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
> would
> not 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
