<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Respectfully, Robert - you have not
addressed Don's question. You've made an excellent case for what
<i>not</i> to do (and i wholeheartedly agree), but nothing on the
side of the case for what to <i>do</i>.<br>
<br>
I'd really be interested in hearing the group's take on the actual
benefits of IPv6 <i>now</i>. The only one i can think of is:<br>
<ul>
<li>reduced network complexity and support costs due to the
elimination of NAT</li>
</ul>
<p>I expect that this benefit would be eliminated many times over
by the cost of:<br>
</p>
<ul>
<li>implementing IPv6 operationally on the network<br>
</li>
<li>retraining staff (I can't even get the help desk folks to
stop using IPv4 addresses when DNS is already set up and
working!)<br>
</li>
<li>re-implementing firewalls to eliminate NAT</li>
<li>(for small multi-homed organisations):</li>
<ul>
<li>applying for provider-independent address space</li>
<li>implementing BGP (including acquiring the hardware and
skills/partners to roll it out)<br>
</li>
</ul>
</ul>
All the other benefits of IPv6 that i can think of are future:<br>
<ul>
<li>ability to grow the network beyond the present limits
imposed by IPv4 addressing</li>
<li>not being subject to the increased cost of acquiring more
than a /22 of IPv4 address space</li>
<li>competitive advantage over competitors who have neglected to
plan for the future<br>
</li>
<li>not being subject to the exhaustion of IPv4<br>
</li>
<li>not being cut off from customers who have already fallen
victim to the exhaustion and are IPv6 only</li>
</ul>
<p>It would be a foolish manager who ignored that big list of
future benefits (especially the last two), but i can very much
understand him or her continuing to defer it until next year's
budget, or at least pushing the project down the priority queue
until bitten.<br>
</p>
IPv6 is a technical <i>must </i><i>do</i>,<i> </i>and i
continue to be wracked with professional guilt that i didn't start
sooner, invest more learning time, and build up more practical
experience with it, but i haven't managed to find a silver bullet
for convincing management. Some of the best Internet minds in the
Asia-Pacific region are on this list. If they can't come up with
some good sells for the benefits of IPv6 now, what hope does the
average IP professional have?<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
<br>
On 03/06/2013 07:22 AM, Robert Hudson wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAOu9xNLxpzkHnv3NnhdtnTg_oOGpyV7NA4V2OM2TRjRJu3WeCg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<p dir="ltr">I am a manager, albeit a technical one. :)</p>
<p dir="ltr">Presently, the case for iPv6 is seen by many managers
(particularly non-technical ones) as the next Y2K. And while I
was actively involved in Y2K projects at multiple levels, and I
believe they were valuable to business beyond simple risk
mitigation, they were all sold to business based on a "if you
don't do this, the world as you know it will end" basis.</p>
<p dir="ltr">And that's exactly how IPv6 is often being sold to
business. "Prepare for the end of the (IPv4) world" is generally
the catch-cry. And whether this is right or not, we are
suffering for the success of the Y2K effort - we put so much
planning and effort into Y2K that we almost entirely prevented
the problem from occurring - to the point where business became
(and still is) suspicious that we concocted the whole problem
just to get money for shiny new toys.</p>
<p dir="ltr">So - what I would propose is that any presentation
done on IPv6 to management (particularly non-technical
management) focuses not only on what is broken and will break
with IPv4, but also what benefits IPv6 offers to a business in a
simple "choose IPv4 or IPv6" context (yes, I know it isn't
currently one or the other).</p>
<p dir="ltr">We need to get out of the habit of just selling
projects and changes to business based on risk mitigation. I
suspect if a car salesman tried to sell you a new car by saying
"Your current car gets terrible economy, and you know we've
reached peak oil, right? And your current car isn't as safe as
this new model, you might die if you don't buy this new car!",
then he wouldn't sell many cars - and yet that's exactly what we
do when we sell IT to business, and we wonder why they're
resistant to give us the money we need...</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 06/03/2013 7:19 AM, "Don Gould" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:don@bowenvale.co.nz">don@bowenvale.co.nz</a>>
wrote:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote">
<br>
This showed up on the NANog list over night.<br>
<br>
Very helpful resource for the SMB space...<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2013-March/056602.html"
target="_blank">http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2013-March/056602.html</a><br>
<br>
Mukom Akong T. Tue Mar 5 17:55:14 UTC 2013 writes...<br>
<br>
Dear experts,<br>
<br>
I've found myself thinking about what ground an engineer needs
to cover in<br>
order to convince the executives to approve and commit to an
IPv6<br>
Deployment project.<br>
...<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>