[82052] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Edward Lewis)
Fri Jul 8 15:41:53 2005
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0507061040130.23768@ls02.fas.harvard.edu>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 11:56:44 -0400
To: Scott McGrath <mcgrath@fas.harvard.edu>
From: Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
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.
