On Tue, 29 May 2007, John Curran wrote: > > ISP's are going to have to actually *lead* the transition > to IPv6 both in terms of infrastructure and setting > customer expectations. and this means getting a good story in front of bean-counters about expending opex/capex to do this transition work. Today the simplest answer is: "if we expend Z dollars on new equipment, and A dollars on IT work we will be able to capture X number of users for Y new service" or some version of that story. Solving that has turned out to be difficult (as is shown by the global lack of meaningful deployment) > p.s. It's not the classic chicken/egg situation; > it's much simpler: Look up and see the IPv4 > Internet - that's the egg, it's first, and it's falling. > We have to recognize that fact and gentle catch > it, or there just won't be any chicken. ok...
- Re: why same names, was Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted David Conrad
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Perry Lorier
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted John Curran
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Mark Tinka
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Chris L. Morrow
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Donald Stahl
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Nathan Ward
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Chris L. Morrow
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted John Curran
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Chris L. Morrow
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Chris L. Morrow
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Donald Stahl
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Chris L. Morrow
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted John Curran
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Chris L. Morrow
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Donald Stahl
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Adrian Chadd
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Randy Bush
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted John Curran