Re: US DoD and IPv6

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

 



On Sep 27, 2010, at 7:31 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:

> So, I came across a interesting recent (June 24, 2010) article on the US
> DoD's news site (http://www.defense.gov/news/), which quote Kris Strance,
> "the chief of internet protocol for the [Dod]", as saying:
> 
>  "{the DoD} philosophy is one that when a component has a mission need or a
>  business case to move to IPv6, then they can do that ... It's driven by
>  their need rather than an overall [Department of Defense] mandate."
> 
> (The complete article is at: http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=59780
> 
> This seems a significant change in course from that given in the "Internet
> Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Interim Transition Guidance" of September 29, 2003,
> which said that:
> 
>  "the DoD has established the goal of transitioning all DoD networking to
>  the next generation of the Internet Protocol, IPv6, by fiscal year (FY)
>  2008."
> 
> The date slippage is not a big deal, I'm ignoring that. What is of more
> interest is that it appears (from the news story) that there has been a
> further* change of course on IPv6 adoption, from 'we _are_ going to
> transition' to 'in cases where there is a monetary or operational case to
> convert, it will happen, but otherwise not'.

Does this surprise anyone with experience with the DOD ? It doesn't me.

Regards
Marshall 


> Can anyone shed any light on this apparent change in policy?
> 
> 	Noel
> 
> -----
> 
> * The only other policy course change I am aware of is the one from August
> 16, 2005 ("Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Policy Update"), which said
> that:
> 
>  "... waiver submissions for programs not transitioning to IPv6 by FY2008.
>  Henceforth, IPv6 waivers are not required by DoD CIO policy."
> 
> (The original September 29, 2003 policy had said "If the IPv6 capable
> criteria {for any DoD acquistion} cannot be met, a waiver will be required.")
> 
> I suppose that technically the seeming current course fits within that updated
> policy, but it still seems to be a change in emphasis and direction.
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


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