OMB: IPv6 by June 2008

Wed Jul 6 15:56:44 UTC 2005

At 10:57 -0400 7/6/05, Scott McGrath wrote:

>IPv6 would have been adopted much sooner if the protocol had been written
>as an extension of IPv4 and in this case it could have slid in under the
>accounting departments radar since new equipment and applications would
>not be needed.

Sliding anything past the accountants is bad practice.  Is the goal 
to run IPv6 or to run a communications medium to support society?  If 
it costs $1M to adopt IPv6 in the next quarter, what would you take 
the $1M from?  (I used to work at a science research center.  Having 
a good network wasn't the goal, doing science was.  Without good 
science, there would be no FY++ budget for a better network.)

The Internet serves society, society owes nothing to the Internet. 
Members of this list may prioritize communications technology, other 
members of society may prioritize different interests and concerns. 
That is why IPv6 must offer a benefit greater than it's cost.

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

If you knew what I was thinking, you'd understand what I was saying.