On 3/5/2013 8:20 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 5, 2013, at 7:55 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
On 3/5/2013 7:15 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 5, 2013, at 6:46 PM, Mukom Akong T. wrote:
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Mike. wrote:
I would lean towards
f) Cost/benefit of deploying IPv6.
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
Hello William,
Thank you for your inputs, see my comments inline.
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 12:09 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>
> >
> > a) Set the strategic context: how your organisation derives value from IP
> > networks and the Internet.
> >
> > b) Overview of the problem: IPv4 exhaustion
> >
> >
On Mar 5, 2013, at 7:55 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> On 3/5/2013 7:15 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Mar 5, 2013, at 6:46 PM, Mukom Akong T. wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Mike. wrote:
>>>
I would lean towards
f) Cost/benefit of deploying IPv6.
>>> I cert
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 smtp.
On 3/5/2013 7:15 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 5, 2013, at 6:46 PM, Mukom Akong T. wrote:
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Mike. 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
Hello Owen,
Would I be accurate in re-phrasing each of these as
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 5:41 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 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 6:46 PM, Mukom Akong T. wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Mike. 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 ex
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
>
>
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Mukom Akong T. wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Mike. 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 exh
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Mike. 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 solution to that,
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.
2.
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 In
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 cove
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Mukom Akong T. 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 minutes) should cover t
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 exec
>
>
> 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.
*Les
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Cameron Byrne 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 / cost savings
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:35 PM, Gary E. Miller 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]. Even
though
On Mar 05, 2013, at 13:41 , Cameron Byrne wrote:
> In-line
Isn't every reply? (Well, every reply worth reading.)
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Mukom Akong T. wrote:
>> Dear experts,
>>
>> I've found myself thinking about what ground an engineer needs to cover in
>> order to convince the
Hi,
In-line
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:55 AM, 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 ma
Yo Mukom!
On Tue, 5 Mar 2013 21:55:14 +0400
"Mukom Akong T." 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 it your customers
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 cover the
following aspects:
a) Set the strategic contex
It was a hoax
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2030073/the-pirate-bay-admits-to-north-korean-hosting-hoax.html
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Warren Bailey <
wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.com> wrote:
> Seems easy enough to convince North Korea that they should announce my
> prefixes... ;)
Seems easy enough to convince North Korea that they should announce my
prefixes... ;)
>From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.
Original message
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer
Date: 03/05/2013 10:55 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: Bacon Zombie
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 09:43:05PM +,
Bacon Zombie wrote
a message of 71 lines which said:
> But there is a lot of debate on Reddit that they are not really in
> North Korea and just doing some BGP trickery:
And ICMP trickery, to send false ICMP replies (with a delay) to
traceroute reques
> From my point of view, outages are caused by:
> 1) operator
> 2) software defect
> 3) hardware defect
>From my experience now days the likelihood of an outage as a result of 3) is
magnitude less than 2) and same goes for 2) to 1) ratio.
In other words the vast majority of the outages are caused
27 matches
Mail list logo
