Phill, On 2010-09-28 16:25, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > The US DoD is running out of IPv4 space? Where did I say that? > > I very much doubt it. Maybe, maybe not... how would we know? > > Problem with the idea that resource depletion will drive adoption of IPv6 is > that it ignores the fact that people who have plenty of IPv4 addresses may > not be that worried about the inability of others to get hold of them. Sure, and those people can live in their own little world, until something changes. Then, they either have a plan in place, or they panic. > And some people are going to see ways of keeping out the competition. Their > view of IPv4 will like the view of the medallion owners who keep New York > Taxis expensive and hard to find even though there is no shortage of drivers > willing to work. Yes, just as incumbent telcos fought against the Internet twenty years ago, until something changed. > The reason IPv6 is still at the project stage is that the designers had the > wrong view of economics. You don't make IPv6 attractive by making it > different to IPv4, you make it attractive by eliminating all the > differences. If only life was that simple, Phill. In any case, we can't rewrite history, and many operators are well beyond "project" and well into "plan". Content providers who aren't into "plan" have a problem coming up if they still want to grow their audience a few years from now. Brian > > > On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Brian E Carpenter < > brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> 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 >> > > > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf