[arin-ppml] Is this more desired than aTransferPolicy? Needinput

[James Hess]

The total investment that must be made is so massive, because there are
so many orgs, and so much of that "inexpensive" sub $100 V4-only
equipment floating about.
The trouble is the investment doesn't have to be large for any single
org to stop them
from making it.

In most cases, orgs just have to think that the probable immediate
benefit is not more
than the cost, to rule out investing in V6. Long-term potential
benefits or "it's best to the community" are conveniently ignored in
many cases.

>[...]  All Windows XP and Vista and MacOS X
> systems are IPv6 compliant.  Virtually all REAL routers (ie: Cisco, Juniper)
> can be made IPv6 compliant with modest upgrades.  And don't go defending

It doesn't involve some sort of  investment in infrastructure to setup V6
functionality?   Innumerable orgs run XP, and V6 is disabled by default,
that's hundreds of thousands of PCs.

The fact that anyone even thinks about turning it on means there is
planning involved. Planning deployment of a new IP protocol also takes
investment, typically, just for
the consulting or internal IT costs in terms of man-hours spent
creating the plan.

And what about the cost to corporations having to retrain their IT
staff to deal with V6?
And re-evaluating software choices to make sure network software
chosen is V6-enabled.
This can be more significant even than replacing the equipment.


And those routers upgrade and configure themselves, without $$$ costs for
the time it takes consultants/admins to actually setup that V6
capability correctly?

> people's ability to use little POS routers like Linksys jobbies that
> cost under $100.  Those are throw-away-and-buy-new-ones scenarios.
> Cable and DSL modems that have integrated NAT's can be switched into
> bridged mode and a IPv6 router can be placed behind them.

Buying a V6 router to put behind them is an investment.

> And finally, leaf-node businesses that have a SINGLE connection to
> the Internet can replace their existing firewall (that most likely
> uses NAT) with a newer one that runs IPv4<->IPv6 proxying, so
> they won't even have to bother changing anything.  [...]

A new firewall is not free.

How many businesses under 200 employees do you see itching to spend $$$
on brand new firewall hardware to support IPv6,  when IPv4 seems to work
just fine for them??



-- 
-J