Yes, it was me that said 2007. Seems the courts want to push the deadline on updating TV signals before the due date, maybe IPV6 will follow. In the past people have pushed to use certain technology, now its time for us to sit back, because technology is starting to take over by itself. Meaning that companies are going to be forced to use it, or suffer loss to the competition.
I know Microsoft and Cisco equipment is IPV6 ready, lets just all switch to IPV6 (insert a date here). -----Original Message----- From: Priscilla Oppenheimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 3:00 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: dumb question IPV6 [7:53712] Hopefully it won't be as bad as your analogy with the shipping port workers, which is even more fraught with political issues. The balance of power between the workers and management has a history of being way off balance, one way or the other, with technological changes being marred by work stoppages and violence. It's a precarious situation. (I had the job in the 1980s of replacing one of the highest-paid longshoreman with an automated crane. Boy was that a challenge, not helped by the fact that our management made us install it before the bugs were worked out.) Anyway, the conversion to IPv6 won't be that bad I don't think. Someone asked about a timeframe. (Was it you?) I think it will be beofre 2007. Five years from now, who knows where we'll be? ;-) Priscilla Brian Zeitz wrote: > > I am for IPV6, I think with e-commerce applications, and > because there > is a trend to use "internet enabled" devices. I know it would be > confusing for system engineers, just when everyone understood > IPV4.... I > know there are some updated troubleshooting tools, ICMP as > well. I think > critical mass will push this into reality. > > I guess it's just like the story with shipping port workers who > do not > want to use computerized shipping methods to make the process > 4x faster > like the rest of shipping ports in the world (Singapore,HK) . I > think > you can put off technology, but they can't hold it back. > Eventually, > Mexico will build a larger, better high tech computerized > shipping port, > and people will complain about jobs going to Mexico. Then the > shipping > dock will shut down, and we will have all these people laid off > complaining. I guess we have to do things the hard way when it > comes to > technology. If it didn't hurt the US economy and businesses so > bad, I > would be laughing about it. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Priscilla Oppenheimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 1:40 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: dumb question IPV6 [7:53712] > > Brian Zeitz wrote: > > > > Can anyone give a guess to when IPV6 will be implemented in > the > > US? > > 2007? > > > > > > IPv6 is already in use on Internet 2, which is pretty prevalent > at > universities. More info here: > > http://www.internet2.edu/html/about.html > > Other than Internet 2, it's hard to say. Workarounds like NAT > and CIDR > kind > of make IPv6 not necessary, even though NAT is a horrid > solution from a > technical standpoint. > > The experts don't agree on when, if ever, the migration to IPv6 > should > happen. Some attendees at IETF meetings are adament that it's > time to > plan > for the conversion now. Others scoff at the entire idea. Others > seem > irritated that the problem wasn't fixed with good solutions > that were > presented almost 10 years ago before the Internet exploded. So, > it's > fraught > with political problems, not just technical. > > _______________________________ > > Priscilla Oppenheimer > www.troubleshootingnetworks.com > www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=53760&t=53712 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
