<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
I definitely agree it is not something to be ignored, and sooner
rather than later would be better, I was simply pointing out that
those in smaller teams with limited time and limited resources, with
no official deadline or impending threat looming over us in the
immediate future, for some, it has taken a lower priority.<br>
<br>
It's definitely something <b>I</b> want to do, and would gladly do
it next week, but in some business there are more pressing matters
at hand, specifically right now (for me and the team I work with),
still managing the ACCC regulation changes on TADSL services.<br>
<br>
I also happen to be in as you point out a fairly good position of
having a fair amount of spare IPv4. But this is my unique position.<br>
<br>
On 21/07/12 10:41 PM, Matthew Palmer wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:20120721124146.GE2221@hezmatt.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 08:45:28PM +1000, Joseph Goldman wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I think it's important to remember that we are on this list for
reasonable discussion among professionals, delving into arguments
and sarcasm won't benefit the discussion.
I also think it's safe to say that IPv6 is possible, but may not be
practical for all. Mostly, such as my case, limitations on resources
to implement such as current hardware and time. As Don was
mentioning, those outfits with limited resources in the interest of
lowering costs as much as possible to stay cut-throat competitive,
IPv6 implementation just isn't high on the list due to the knowledge
it will still take a long time yet before IPv4 is dropped in any
meaningful way.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
The problem is that IPv6 *isn't* something you can ignore until you feel the
economic climate is more prepared. Now that we've hit the first stages of
IPv4 address exhaustion, some of your competitors (regardless of what
industry you're competing in) will start to see the benefits of IPv6, and
they *will* start to invest the money in it. Then, when the *real*
crunch-time comes, and you either can't get public IPv4 addresses at *all*,
or you have to pay more and more money for them, the realisation will hit
that avoiding IPv6 isn't a cost minimisation exercise, it is instead a means
of greatly increasing your costs in the future.
Now, you personally might be lucky and never have any need of further IPv4
addresses. Good for you. But plenty of organisations *do* need further IP
address space, and they're now starting to have some trouble getting IPv4.
Those organisations which have adopted IPv6 will be cool, and those who have
not will either die or very hurriedly start supporting it when the cost of
obtaining additional IPv4 addresses exceeds the cost of deploying IPv6.
This will drive IPv6 rollout and adoption in ways that mirror the takeup of
the Internet itself -- plenty of people who don't see it coming will be
flattened. Far more quickly that you would expect, IPv6 support will go
from "damn that's going to cost some coin, maybe next year" to "the company
can't operate because some vital new service is IPv6 only and I'm going to
have to explain why I didn't see this coming and plan for it".
Yes, it sucks. It'd be great if Someone Else had worked out all the kinks
with IPv6 and the rest of us could just sit back and do nothing and have it
all just roll itself out automagically. But given that has practically
*never* happened in my career, and I'm willing to bet that it's happened
rarely enough in yours, I'm a little surprised that you'd think that IPv6
will ever be any different to everything else you've ever had to deal with.
- Matt
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>