On 2010-09-28 13:59, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > 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. It sound to me like a case for the phrase often used by my late colleague Mervyn Hine at CERN, when the management performed a U-turn: "Aha! Reality has broken in again." The fact is that official mandates are not a very good reason for upgrading systems. Running out of a resource is a much better one. http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/ Brian > > 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 > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf