North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted

  • From: Krichbaum, Eric
  • Date: Sat May 26 14:25:50 2007

Agreed.  The statement from ARIN is recent and impacts us all.  We've
got our core v6 routing in place, but operationally, that's really the
easy part.  Modifying the tools such as billing, monitoring, management,
tracking, and auditting are the slow link in the chain.  The space is
dwindling but that doesn't seem to be putting the transition pressure on
if the services aren't there to use v6.  Until more transit providers
support it, the reasoning for smaller provider to transition is limited.


Eric Krichbaum, PhD
Director Network Engineering, Citynet

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-nanog@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Steven M. Bellovin
Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 11:31 AM
To: Randy Bush
Cc: Martin Hannigan; nanog@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted


On Sat, 26 May 2007 00:39:19 -0400
Randy Bush <randy@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> you have something new and interesting about ipv6?  if so, did you 
> submit?
> 
Given the ARIN statement, I think it's time for more discussion of v6
migration, transition, and operations issues.  No, I'm not volunteering;
I'm not running a v6 network.  I suspect that Martin is right -- the
program committee should be proactive on this topic and seek out
presenters.


		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb