[96923] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Donald Stahl)
Tue May 29 14:49:10 2007
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 12:53:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: Donald Stahl <don@calis.blacksun.org>
To: "Chris L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow@verizonbusiness.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0705291557370.11314@marvin.argfrp.us.uu.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
> 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.
-Don
