North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008
At 19:23 +0200 7/6/05, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: With the chicken little-ing again...
Pardon my skepticism, but I recall hearing about the coming of the world due to pollution in the 1970's and the end of the oil supply by the 1980's. (E.g., see http://www.ncpa.org/pub/bg/bg159/ for a discussion on the latter, albeit written before the most recent oil 'scare.')You are approaching the problem at the wrong end by asking "what's in it for me to adopt IPv6 now". The real question is "is IPv6 inevitable in the long run".
The point isn't whether IPv6 is good or not - it's that long-range predictions are often wrong. For every "memex" (http://www.iath.virginia.edu/elab/hfl0051.html) there's an oil crisis, Ada, GOSIP, economic default of New York City (Ford to City: Drop Dead! - NY Daily News, Oct 30, 1975)...
http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0405/augmentation.htmlSo by all means, be an IPv6 hold out as long as you like, but don't assume that just because adopting IPv6 doesn't make economic sense for you now, it isn't going to happen at some point in the next decade. No rush, though.
Been there, done that, documented and shared results. (Yes, got the T-Shirt too. It was a NANOG, after all.) That wasn't even the first go-round I had with IPv6.
My experiences were that IPv6 was painful - I ran into a lot of application bugs, OS's didn't deal with it well, and the ISP's were tough to deal with - as in, not many suppliers, not enough expertise to deliver on promises.
Maybe things are better now (note the use of past tense in the previous paragraph), I don't deal with IPv6 at this time.
Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468
If you knew what I was thinking, you'd understand what I was saying.