RE: DoD IP Space

[Mark Foster]

Apologies for the top-post to a bottom-thread; I blame Outlook.

I was going to comment that in a couple of corporate network engineering roles 
I've had, the lack of the business case has always been to highlight that all 
the things we want to reach on the Internet can be accessed by IPv4.

So the business case will be the 'killer app' or perhaps 'killer service' 
that's IPv6-only and that'll provide a business reason.

But chicken and egg.. who wants to run a service that's IPv6-only and miss out 
on such a big userbase?

What remains is sliding IPv6 in as a minimal-cost service upgrade when you 
lifecycle your equipment.  And when it's not minimal-cost (due to perhaps, 
complex firewall/nat arrangements), it's still a hard ask.

I don't have the answer to this yet, but occasionally a tech-savvy executive 
buys-in on the need to future-proof things.

Mark.

-Original Message-
From: NANOG  On Behalf Of scott
Sent: Sunday, 14 February 2021 1:01 pm
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: DoD IP Space


On 2/12/2021 8:39 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
> On 2/12/21 21:56, scott wrote:
>>
>> 100% agreed!  Been whining about that here many times.  I have been 
>> trying to get IPv6 going for a long time, but the above stopped my 
>> plans.  One thing I mentioned recently, though, is we just got a 
>> $BIGCUSTOMER and their requirement was we do IPv6. So keep your IPv6 
>> deployment plans ready.  In my case they said a 'we need it right 
>> now' kind of thing.  That could happen to anyone here.
>
> How about just doing it and then asking for forgiveness later :-)?
>
> That's what I did in 2005, but fair point, the network was only 2 
> routers big and in just one city :-).
> --
> --


I would be looking for a new job and it is a much larger network than 2 routers 
is a big city.  :)Sabri Berisha was correct: "The true enemy here is 
mid-level management that refuses to prioritize deployment of IPv6.   What we 
should be discussing is how best to approach that problem. It's where ops and 
corporate politics overlap."   What I always heard when I bring it up and they 
don't want to talk about it was "What's the business case?" They know there 
isn't one.

scott

Re: DoD IP Space

[scott]

On 2/12/2021 8:39 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:

On 2/12/21 21:56, scott wrote:


100% agreed!  Been whining about that here many times.  I have been 
trying to get IPv6 going for a long time, but the above stopped my 
plans.  One thing I mentioned recently, though, is we just got a 
$BIGCUSTOMER and their requirement was we do IPv6. So keep your IPv6 
deployment plans ready.  In my case they said a 'we need it right 
now' kind of thing.  That could happen to anyone here.


How about just doing it and then asking for forgiveness later :-)?

That's what I did in 2005, but fair point, the network was only 2 
routers big and in just one city :-).





I would be looking for a new job and it is a much larger network than 2 
routers is a big city.  :)    Sabri Berisha was correct: "The true enemy 
here is mid-level management that refuses to prioritize deployment of 
IPv6.   What we should be discussing is how best to approach that 
problem. It's where ops and corporate politics overlap."   What I always 
heard when I bring it up and they don't want to talk about it was 
"What's the business case?" They know there isn't one.


scott

London/Moscow

[Rod Beck]

Hey Gang,

What is the lowest latency anyone has seen on this route? All-fibre. Or hybrid 
fibre/microwave.

Regards,

Roderick.


Roderick Beck

Global Network Capacity Procurement

United Cable Company

www.unitedcablecompany.com
https://unitedcablecompany.com/video/
New York City & Budapest

rod.b...@unitedcablecompany.com

Budapest: 36-70-605-5144

NJ: 908-452-8183



[1467221477350_image005.png]