Please don't take this post the wrong way. I'm not trying to badger you, but just offer some food for thought.
""Mossburg, Geoff (MAN-Corporate)"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > You know, that's not such a bad idea. Why wait until the last minute to > implement a pending technology; do it now and work out all the bugs before > it's forced on you. There's a very good reason to wait. Why spend money on something that's not really pressing at the time-being, why not instead spend that money dealing with more important issues of the day? There is only a finite amount of budget available at any one time, and ideally it should go to the problems that need solving immediately. Either that, or take that money and invest it in bonds or something. The point I'm trying to make is that you can't simply say that implementing a pending technology immediately is always the right thing to do. It has to be analyzed for its financial costs and benefits, just like anything else. >I hope people take this seriously; corporations just > LOVE to wait until they're forced into something, so they can gripe and > complain about how complicated it is, when if they would just plan ahead for > the inevitable, First of all, ipv6 is far from inevitable. There is raging debate about just how inevitable it really is. What if it turns out to be much ado about nothing - just like ATM to the desktop, Fiber-to-the-curb, and so many other technology initiatives before that? If you had spent money implementing ipv6 and it turns out not to be inevitable, then you just wasted budget dollars that could have been spent doing useful things. >they wouldn't have to worry about the problems > procrastination brings. (Sorry for the soapbox speech, but I like to > encourage proactive ideas.) Yeah well, there are also very serious problems associated with building things out before its time. For example, the telcos, especially the ISP's. Or the dotcoms. So sure you don't want to fall behind the curve. But you don't really want to be too far in front of it either. It's a tricky balancing act. How do you not fall behind your competition and yet not waste money on initiatives that turn out to be worthless? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Zeitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 5:18 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: dumb question IPV6 [7:53712] > > > 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=53792&t=53712 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
