[arin-ppml] How hard is it to transition to IPv6?
khelms at zcorum.com
Fri Mar 27 17:26:51 EDT 2009
That is an interesting choice of words. I don't know what kind of
people you work for/with (I assume from your email address BT) but I can
tell you that if I told my customers, who are ISPs, that they should
stop "complaining" because they were "negligent" the response wouldn't
be all that friendly. There are hard economic realities here and it is
very easy for someone to simply say the small providers don't matter,
but there are lots areas in the US that wouldn't have service (phone,
cable, or Internet) if it weren't for small and apparently "negligent"
providers. What are ISPs supposed to do with customers that can't
afford a compliant device? Cut them off? Replace the device
ourselves? Globally ~1.4% of active browsing sessions are from systems
running Win 2000 and I don't have any problem saying that percentage is
much higher in rural markets. I still have some providers who report
significant usage of Win 98. While there is an unofficial patch out
there for Win 2000 (and steering customers to it is a whole new issue)
AFAIK there isn't anything for 98.
Finally, I am well aware that the transition will happen, you only have
to look here:
to see that we won't have any choice sometime very soon. What I object
to is the idea that because Google was able to make the transition
internally with "ease" that it will be all goodness and light for other
kinds of service providers.
michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
>> Google has shown with the source code and programmers you can
>> fix the software in ~18 months. That's good news, isn't it?
>> If we can all drive home the requirements to the vendors it
>> seems like there is plenty of time to get stuff fixed and
>> deployed before it is an issue.
> People are wasting their breath complaining here. They should be beating
> down their vendors doors to fix the IPv6 problem, and if it is equipment
> bought within the last couple of years and the vendors down't have it
> high enough priority with delivery promised in the next 18 months, then
> they should immediately take those vendors to court and sue for damages.
> Get back all the money you paid, any costs of switching out the crap
> equipment for another brand that can (or will) handle IPv6, plus
> Lots of companies have been negligent, both hardware/software vendors
> and network operators. Of course there is still enough time to recover
> from these mistakes if a company makes it a priority and sets some firm
> internal targets, but if one of your suppliers is not willing to make
> firm promisies, then take them to court and tear them to shreds now
> before they go bankrupt. Fact is that when IPv6 takes off it will be a
> flurry of activity and a lot of that will be companies moving away from
> suppliers who do not have enough IPv6 support. That will drive some
> companies into bankruptcy. That's just the way the economy works and in
> my personal opinion it is better for the economy to drive those
> companies into bankruptcy sooner rather than later.
> The time has come for everyone to stop denial and admit that
> circumstances are forcing us to deploy IPv6 regardless of whether it has
> the kind of business case that we prefer. If senior management is not
> past the denial stage and into the action stage then they are
> incompetent. Enough network operators have already moved into the action
> stage as well as companies like Google. It is clear that IPv6 deployment
> is the way forward out of this addressing mess.
> --Michael Dillon
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
Vice President of Technology
ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum
More information about the ARIN-PPML