Re: myth of the great transition (was US Defense Department formally adopts IPv6)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Ronald,

RvdP> There is a big difference between planning/engineering for a transition
RvdP> and planning/engineering for a coexistance. There seem to be forces
RvdP> trying to steer to the latter. Seems like an important question. Why
RvdP> would we want an internet with two protocols with the same functionality
RvdP> running in parallel? Should that be the goal?


It is not possible to have a flag-day event for switching to a
replacement service.

Hence, there must be a transition that takes some time.

Remember that this involves thousands of independent administrations and
many tens of millions of systems

Any detailed consideration of the mechanics and time-frame required of
such a transition -- and, yes, I said required; not desirable, not
likely, but required -- you will discover that those details look
exactly like "coexistence".


d/
--
 Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>



[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]