<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 11/24/08 11:12 PM, Kevin Kargel wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ABCD@mail"
type="cite"><br>
<pre wrap=""><!---->[Kevin says:]
US government organizations are not only considering conversion, but are
already mandated to currently provide IPv6 connectivity on their
backbones. This mandate was proclaimed way back in 2005. The same is
true of many global governments, of whom the US is not the leading edge.
US DoT are already using IPv6 on government circuits.. I don't know
where you are getting your facts but these were fallacies that only
promoted falsehood.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Really? And how about the California Department of Motor Vehicles, or
the Indiana Family & Social Services Agency or the Mexican
Federales? I don't know where you live, but how about your local
department of emergency services or your hospital? Are they v6 ready?
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ABCD@mail"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">One more statement, while it is good and necessary to maintain IPv4 for
existing networks who do not wish to evolve, I do not think there is any
moral imperative (in fact I think it is impossible) to maintain a steady
supply of IPv4 for all comers forever. You can't get blood from a rock.
Attempting to maintain a limitless supply of a finite resource is a
certain way to fail.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Nobody said ANYTHING about a limitless supply. What many of us are
asking is what to do with a scarcity. Some of the above sites will
need address space, and their need will not go unmet, although the
usefulness of their service to the community may diminish.<br>
<br>
Eliot<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>