[arin-discuss] Anyone play with IPv6 on the RV4000?

[bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com]

On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 04:41:12PM -0400, Keith W. Hare wrote:
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net] 
> > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 2:11 PM
> > > 
> > > I don't think IPv6 has a chance of being real until the 
> > term "IPv6" is
> > > important enough that the marketing people put it in the high level
> > > product descriptions.
> > > 
> > 
> > I think it's the other way round.
> > 
> > When the marketing people start putting IPv6 in the high level
> > product descriptions, THEN we will know it's important
> > and is being considered "real"
> > 
> 
> There is a circular problem here -- Marketing isn't pushing IPv6 until
> the customers demand it, and the customers won't know to demand IPv6
> until Marketing pushes it.
> 
> Keith
> 


	Keith,

		If there is a marketing push for IPv6, we, as a community will have
	failed.  One might as well push CLNP, or NSAP, or DECnetPhaseV. The "market"
	for transport protocols in the commodity sector is almost nil.

		What sells is access and content. The delivery vehicle is moot as far
	as the commodity sector is concerned. From and -engineering- standpoint, if you
	can persuade the marketing folks that they can continue to sell access and content
	(services) now and into the future - at a lower cost tot he company, then you
	are likely to not lose your job. :)  

		There are two pragmatic choices - embrace nested NAT technologoes over IPv4
	as the only cost effective way forward - OR - embrace IPv6 as the most cost effective
	way forward.  The other vectors are research projects, pipedream, nostalgia, or
	out-rigth delusional.

--bill (my 0.02)