On 9/27/10 7:20 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 2010-09-28 13:59, Marshall Eubanks wrote: >> On Sep 27, 2010, at 7:31 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: >>> 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/ The fact of the matter as a vendor, is that if you want to get through network equipment requirements for, for example the army approved products list (AAPL), ipv6 conformance testing is now no longer an annnex, it's simply part of the process. The 2005 mandate said that equipment and services you procure for certain roles in the network must have the ipv6 compliant checkbox ticked, we're well beyond that now. > 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