Interesting! Your analysis suggests PSN is not so much a network rather a dated way to gateway third party networks based on a model of each network using incompatible protocols a la 1980s. Using IP should have removed the need for that.
So your solution may well be the correct one. Do away with PSN and setup an Internet or at least an IP exchange point to peer government networks. That would solve a lot of hassle and could support v6 and v4 so the choice can be made as convenient to the various parties. Christian Lee Maguire wrote: >> If Government networks need to renumber v4 then establishing v6 for the >> backbone infrastructure is likely more straightforward and less costly than >> a nightmare v4 reconfig. > > The issue, at least when it came up before. is that PSN is not the government > network as such, but mainly a way of connecting non-government suppliers to > government departments. (Hundreds of independent entities all using 1918 > address space in their own way) i.e. not only do you have to transition “the > government” you also have to transition hundreds of different supplier > companies... quite possibly at the same time. > > Given the Olympian feet-dragging the government has dedicated to IPv6 over > the last decade I’m sceptical towards the success of a “just do it” approach > to transition. > > Of course, if you get rid of the PSN, this problem goes away... > > -- Christian de Larrinaga FBCS, CITP, MCMA ------------------------- @ FirstHand ------------------------- +44 7989 386778 c...@firsthand.net ------------------------- -- Please support ORG's work - join and help fund our future: https://www.openrightsgroup.org/join To unsubscribe, send a blank email to org-discuss-le...@lists.openrightsgroup.org or use https://lists.openrightsgroup.org/listinfo/org-discuss
