On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:25 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
For that, you need the help of a real cost analyst. That's what
they're for; they help organizations figure out a solid idea what
something will really cost before they start spending money. If your
organization is large,
On 7 Mar 2013, at 02:50, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Mar 7, 2013, at 11:36 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
I would pitch it as follows: We need to at least have IPv6 access to
troubleshoot/understand customers that have dual-stack technology.
That's a great point, but my guess is that the suits
On Mar 7, 2013, at 5:42 AM, Arturo Servin aser...@lacnic.net wrote:
Yes, but this is an argument to deploy the whole IPv6 thing, not
against a strategy to first deploy in-house and then to customers, isn't it?
In my experience, it is always best to try IPv6 in-house (at least a
Pretty much the same process that I have seen in many ISPs and
enterprises.
Regards.
as
On 07/03/2013 11:32, John Curran wrote:
On Mar 7, 2013, at 5:42 AM, Arturo Servin aser...@lacnic.net wrote:
Yes, but this is an argument to deploy the whole IPv6 thing, not
against a
On Wed, 6 Mar 2013, Mukom Akong T. wrote:
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Antonio Querubin t...@lavanauts.org wrote:
I don't think the business case is the issue. It is the timeline over
which the sense of urgency becomes important enough for most execs to take
seriously. That's still a
On Thursday, March 7, 2013, Antonio Querubin wrote:
On Wed, 6 Mar 2013, Mukom Akong T. wrote:
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Antonio Querubin t...@lavanauts.org
wrote:
I don't think the business case is the issue. It is the timeline over
which the sense of urgency becomes important
2013 12:57:15 -0800
From: matt...@matthew.at
To: cb.li...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: What Should an Engineer Address when 'Selling' IPv6 to
Executives?
CC: nanog@nanog.org
On 3/6/2013 9:20 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:29 PM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote
On Mar 5, 2013, at 9:55 PM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
So all meaningful growth (mobile, cloud, internet of things...) must happen
on IPv6 ...
or relatively expensive IPv4 addresses from the black market and / or NATs
Cameron -
I agree with the intent, but just for clarity,
Doubt it all you want. Once it's gone, it stops generating support calls, or
they become very short:
C: Hi, my application isn't working through my NAT.
TSR: Hi… Get IPv6, we don't support NAT any more.
TSR: Is there anything else I can help you with today?
C: Hi, my application isn't
On Wed, 6 Mar 2013, Mukom Akong T. wrote:
I believe if anyone who can phrase the IPv4 Exhaustion Problem + IPv6
Solution in very specific terms of the business model of the company will
implicitly inspire confidence in execs that they know what they are talking
about.
I don't think the
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Antonio Querubin t...@lavanauts.org wrote:
I don't think the business case is the issue. It is the timeline over
which the sense of urgency becomes important enough for most execs to take
seriously. That's still a large unknown.
Why should they care about
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:29 PM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote:
On 3/5/2013 8:20 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 5, 2013, at 7:55 PM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote:
On 3/5/2013 7:15 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 5, 2013, at 6:46 PM, Mukom Akong T. mukom.ta...@gmail.com
On 03/05/2013 05:41 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I think it's also important to cover the following topics somewhere in the
process:
1. This will affect the entire organization, not just the IT department and
will definitely impact all of apps, sysadmin, devops, operations, and
On Mar 5, 2013, at 9:55 AM, Mukom Akong T. mukom.ta...@gmail.com wrote:
[…]
b) To you who are managers, what else do you need your engineers to address
in order for you to be convinced?
How long will it take to complete the project?
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
So, your position, which is substantiated my Microsoft's / Windows
Phone's / Skype's lack of IPv6 support , is that nobody cares until
we run out of IPv4.
That is clearly reducto ad absurdum and does not resemble
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Matthew wrote:
[...]
1. Decreased application complexity:
Yeah. After IPv4 goes entirely away. Which is a long, long, LONG time from
now. Until then…
I don't think so. I think IPv4's demise as a supported internet
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Mukom Akong T. mukom.ta...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 12:09 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
1. What is the real dollar cost of doing the project (including both
up-front and currently indefinite ongoing costs of dual stack. And
don't
On Wed, 6 Mar 2013, George Herbert wrote:
The mindshare shift is happening, but the change won't snowball until
IT admins - in bulk - really get it.
and keeping in mind that the bulk still don't get ipv4, either, (how
many times a day do I explain to someone what a /xx is, and how you'd fill
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 12:30 PM, david raistrick dr...@icantclick.org wrote:
On Wed, 6 Mar 2013, George Herbert wrote:
The mindshare shift is happening, but the change won't snowball until
IT admins - in bulk - really get it.
and keeping in mind that the bulk still don't get ipv4, either,
On 3/6/2013 9:20 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:29 PM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote:
On 3/5/2013 8:20 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 5, 2013, at 7:55 PM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote:
On 3/5/2013 7:15 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 5, 2013, at 6:46
From: Matthew Kaufman [mailto:matt...@matthew.at]
They suggest that IPv4 support is needed *in conjunction with* IPv6
support for 5-8 years.
That's a long time if you're developing software... so, basically, no...
no cost or effort saving if you were to do this work today. In fact, 2x
the
On Mar 6, 2013, at 10:50 AM, Jeroen van Aart jer...@mompl.net wrote:
On 03/05/2013 05:41 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I think it's also important to cover the following topics somewhere in the
process:
1. This will affect the entire organization, not just the IT department and
will
On Wed, 2013-03-06 at 18:48 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 6, 2013, at 10:50 AM, Jeroen van Aart jer...@mompl.net wrote:
Adapting your current software to IPv6, that could be more tricky.
Although if you use the right IPv6 aware libraries and functions it
could be relatively easy in code.
Not sure how to avoid the legal entanglements my employer has placed in the
IT teams path but I'll try to provide a real-world example without
breaking confidentially agreements we all were required to sign for
continued employment at a very large US-based bank.
Our senior IT team had proposed a
On Mar 7, 2013, at 10:10 AM, Jerry Klonaper wrote:
It wasn't due to the lack of selling to executives, as this thread contends
can be done, but due to the lack of any business case that could be found.
Is the deployment in such a state that rollout can be resumed if/when it's
deemed a
On Mar 6, 2013, at 11:31 PM, Dobbins, Roland rdobb...@arbor.net wrote:
On Mar 7, 2013, at 10:10 AM, Jerry Klonaper wrote:
It wasn't due to the lack of selling to executives, as this thread contends
can be done, but due to the lack of any business case that could be found.
Is the
On Mar 7, 2013, at 11:36 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
I would pitch it as follows: We need to at least have IPv6 access to
troubleshoot/understand customers that have dual-stack technology.
That's a great point, but my guess is that the suits will say that since none
of their customers are using
On Mar 6, 2013, at 3:13 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
...
I'm sorry, but a lot of organizations' response to IPv6 has been Ok,
desktops will need an overlay of it for some websites in AP next year,
so we'll do that. And we need an IPv6 front end visibility for our
Yo Mukom!
On Tue, 5 Mar 2013 21:55:14 +0400
Mukom Akong T. mukom.ta...@gmail.com wrote:
I think such a presentation (15 slides max in 45 minutes) should
cover the following aspects:
You missed the most important one. Many people now include IPv6 as
a mandatory RFQ item. If you don't support
Hi,
In-line
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Mukom Akong T. mukom.ta...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear experts,
I've found myself thinking about what ground an engineer needs to cover in
order to convince the executives to approve and commit to an IPv6
Deployment project.
I think such a
On Mar 05, 2013, at 13:41 , Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
In-line
Isn't every reply? (Well, every reply worth reading.)
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Mukom Akong T. mukom.ta...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear experts,
I've found myself thinking about what ground an engineer needs to
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:35 PM, Gary E. Miller g...@rellim.com wrote:
You missed the most important one. Many people now include IPv6 as
a mandatory RFQ item. If you don't support it your customers will
be fewer and fewer.
I did mention it under the last but one paragraph of section [a].
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
One of the most important things i see not being stressed enough is
that IPv6 is frequently free or a low-cost incremental upgrade.
So, when calculating ROI / NPV, the hurdle can be very low such that
the cash in-flow /
The low hurdle advantage remains only if the organisation starts soon and
progresses incrementally. I suspect the longer v6 deployment is put off,
the more this advantage is eroded.
Agreed; IMHO planning and starting sooner costs less than pushing it off
until it is a firedrill.
*Less in
On Tue, 05 Mar 2013 21:55:14 +0400, Mukom Akong T. said:
I've found myself thinking about what ground an engineer needs to cover in
order to convince the executives to approve and commit to an IPv6
Deployment project.
You forgot step 0 - figuring out why in 2013, you're talking to an
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Mukom Akong T. mukom.ta...@gmail.com wrote:
I've found myself thinking about what ground an engineer needs to cover in
order to convince the executives to approve and commit to an IPv6
Deployment project.
I think such a presentation (15 slides max in 45
On 3/5/2013 at 9:55 PM Mukom Akong T. wrote:
|Dear experts,
|
|I've found myself thinking about what ground an engineer needs to
cover in
|order to convince the executives to approve and commit to an IPv6
|Deployment project.
|
|I think such a presentation (15 slides max in 45 minutes) should
On Tue, 5 Mar 2013, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Why not just have them read their own SEC filings. Nearly every company has
something to the effect of this in their 10K:
The potential exhaustion of the supply of unallocated IPv4 addresses
and the inability of $COMPANY and other
I think it's also important to cover the following topics somewhere in the
process:
1. This will affect the entire organization, not just the IT department and
will definitely impact all of apps, sysadmin, devops, operations, and
networking teams within the IT department.
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Mike. the.li...@mgm51.com wrote:
I would lean towards
f) Cost/benefit of deploying IPv6.
I certainly agree, which is why I propose understanding you organisation's
business model and how specifically v4 exhaustion will threaten that. IPv6
is the cast as a
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Mukom Akong T. mukom.ta...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Mike. the.li...@mgm51.com wrote:
I would lean towards
f) Cost/benefit of deploying IPv6.
I certainly agree, which is why I propose understanding you organisation's
business model
On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 17:41 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
3.We've actually been through this before. In some cases more than once.
e.g.:
Novell - TCP/IP
Windows Networking - TCP/IP
Appletalk - TCP/IP
NCP - TCP/IP
In some
On Mar 5, 2013, at 6:46 PM, Mukom Akong T. mukom.ta...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Mike. the.li...@mgm51.com wrote:
I would lean towards
f) Cost/benefit of deploying IPv6.
I certainly agree, which is why I propose understanding you organisation's
business
Hello Owen,
Would I be accurate in re-phrasing each of these as
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 5:41 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
1. This will affect the entire organization, not just the IT
department and
will definitely impact all of apps, sysadmin, devops, operations,
On 3/5/2013 7:15 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 5, 2013, at 6:46 PM, Mukom Akong T. mukom.ta...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Mike. the.li...@mgm51.com wrote:
I would lean towards
f) Cost/benefit of deploying IPv6.
I certainly agree, which is why I propose
The benefits, if any, of supporting IPv6 now really depend on what
kind of use your organization makes of the Internet. Despite all of
the huffing and puffing, it will be a very long time before there are
interesting bits of the net not visible over IPv4 for common
applications like http and
On Mar 5, 2013, at 7:55 PM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote:
On 3/5/2013 7:15 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 5, 2013, at 6:46 PM, Mukom Akong T. mukom.ta...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Mike. the.li...@mgm51.com wrote:
I would lean towards
f) Cost/benefit
Hello William,
Thank you for your inputs, see my comments inline.
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 12:09 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
a) Set the strategic context: how your organisation derives value from IP
networks and the Internet.
b) Overview of the problem: IPv4 exhaustion
Hello all,
I forgot to include a link to the post that details the framework I
initially suggested. It's at
http://techxcellence.net/2013/03/05/v6-business-case-for-engineers/
Regards
On 3/5/2013 8:20 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 5, 2013, at 7:55 PM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote:
On 3/5/2013 7:15 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 5, 2013, at 6:46 PM, Mukom Akong T. mukom.ta...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Mike. the.li...@mgm51.com wrote:
I
50 matches
Mail list logo
