Let me make a couple of observations. First, IPv6 is the standard for a few niches, such as 3rd generation wireless and the infrastructure for HDTV. If you will interface with these sectors, you will need to use it. I think it's also being used in some new air traffic control systems.
Second, if a company has labs, IPv6 is probably close enough that it's worth doing some familiarization. Third, in the specific example, where there is overlap between two 10/8 domains, the only practical way to get around massive renumbering is double NAT (i.e., Enterprise 1 to DMZ, DMZ to Enterprise 2). I'd want to look at specifics, but v6 might, in some cases, be useful for the DMZ. Fourth, there are still only partially understood routing aspects. Autoaddressing is more flexible in V6 than in V4, including changing carriers. Multihoming with multiple carriers is not a completely solved problem. Don't always think of V6 as a way to "get more addresses". It also has functionality that V4 does not. Indeed, the general pattern in V6 deployment is likely to use static addresses much less than V4, including the high-level prefix that may be aggregated at the carrier or set of carrier levels. At 10:19 AM +0000 7/7/02, nrf wrote: >Well, I don't know that I would have used the word 'unfortunate' to describe >it. The fact is, why should you, me, or any country spend valuable >resources on doing something unless it's pressing? If the United States >isn't even close to running out of addresses (and we aren't), then why >should we worry about it now? It's more efficient to spend valuable time >and money on more pressing matters. > >An analogy would be the provable reserves of, say, natural resources. Take >oil, for an example. In the history of the oil industry, there never has >been at any time more than a 20-30 year supply of proven reserves. In the >1960's, there was a 25 year supply of known oil, and today there's still >about a 25 year supply of known oil. This is simply because once you've >found a certain amount of oil, it's not economical to spend money to find >even more. It's costly to drill and explore. Similarly, it's costly to >migrate to ipv6 and develop new tools and skills. So why should the US >migrate until it really is close to running out of ipv4 addresses (which, >like I said, it is not even close)? > > > >""Scott Nelson"" wrote in message >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >> Not with the USA fat and happy with enough v4 addresses for awhile. Plus >> rfc1918, NAT and CIDR has helped a lot. >> It's unfortunate but, until we here in the USA get hit with the neccessity >> to move to IPv6, we are going to be slow to adopt it. >> >> http://isp-planet.com/business/2002/ipv6_wait.html >> >> >> Scotty >> >> >> >> >> >> ""supernet"" wrote in message >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >> > My company would merge with another company soon. Both companies use >> > 10.0.0.0/8 subnet, so we have to change one of them. I'm thinking maybe >> > it's a good chance to go ipv6. What do you guys think on this? Will ipv6 >> > go enterprise soon? >> > >> > Thanks. >> > Yoshi Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=48269&t=48129 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
