[arin-ppml] Is this more desired than aTransferPolicy? Needinput
tedm at ipinc.net
Wed Nov 19 14:00:49 EST 2008
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jo Rhett [mailto:jrhett at svcolo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 9:43 AM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: 'James Hess'; 'Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond'; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Is this more desired than
> aTransferPolicy? Needinput
> On Nov 18, 2008, at 5:37 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > But, over the long term, that's something else. I have
> worked at many
> > prior corporate employers where the marketing people forced the IT
> > people to deploy the newest version of MS Office - because the
> > marketing people liked the interface better. That expense
> dwarfs an
> > IPv6 rollout expense but orgs will do it because the users get
> I'm sorry, Ted, but I've spent 20 years as a consultant with
> doing mostly network upgrades, but also changes like OS upgrades and
> software package upgrades across the enterprise. Your expression
> above about an Office upgrade dwarfing the cost of a network
> has no match in my experience.
> There are good packages designed for upgrading software
> throughout the
> enterprise. Most large companies use these,
Exactly. Most LARGE companies. As in, most cash-rich, forklift
upgrade all PC"s every 3 years so they are all the same, with a
large MS site licese, companies.
Why exactly are we worried about these companies? They have the
cash to go to IPv6. And if they are doing rolled-out OS upgrades
then they are running XP or Vista and can turn on IPv6 quite
easily by just rolling out a config change to all seats.
> and could do
> this rollout
> overnight after the month of testing and evaluation for the
> new build
> go into place.
> The comparative cost of doing the application conformance
> tests alone,
> assuming all of their switches, routers and firewalls are
> already IPv6
> compliant, dwarfs that cost.
I simply disagree. You have to do the same amount of application
testing when your going to a new Windows OS. Consider the millions of
bucks these companies are paying Microsoft every year for their MS
site licenses. IPv6 rollouts require NO licensing fees!
> And consider Ted. Most companies do MS Office upgrades every 2
> years. They are quite comfortable with this kind of upgrade. They
> have no experience upon which to take on an IPv6 upgrade.
I don't see that learning
about IPv6 is any tougher than the transition from MS Domain-style
networking to MS Active Directory.
> PLEASE people. Stop thinking that just because IP networking is old
> hat to you, and that "software" are tools you use to manage your
> router - which have supported IPv6 for years, means that your
> network admin or their software developer have even started
> considering what they need to do for IPv6. Because neither
> one has, I
> assure you.
Your average network admin wasn't considering that they would have to
go to 64-bit machines and replace all their server hardware when they
went to the new version of Exchange, but they managed it.
Your average software developer is paid to know these things. If
they don't then customers will stop buying their software and go
to a competitors software that does know better.
I think you are simply not giving credibility to the abilities of
the average network admin. I'd rather operate from the position that
these folks will be able to manage this transition just as they managed
every other transition.
And I really don't see any alternative. If there was an alternative to
IPv6, then we might have something.
More information about the ARIN-PPML