[Top] [All Lists]

Re: US DoD and IPv6

2010-09-28 10:19:20
The US DoD is running out of IPv4 space?

I very much doubt it.

Problem with the idea that resource depletion will drive adoption of IPv6 is
that it ignores the fact that people who have plenty of IPv4 addresses may
not be that worried about the inability of others to get hold of them.

And some people are going to see ways of keeping out the competition. Their
view of IPv4 will like the view of the medallion owners who keep New York
Taxis expensive and hard to find even though there is no shortage of drivers
willing to work.

The reason IPv6 is still at the project stage is that the designers had the
wrong view of economics. You don't make IPv6 attractive by making it
different to IPv4, you make it attractive by eliminating all the

On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:

On 2010-09-28 13:59, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Sep 27, 2010, at 7:31 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:

So, I came across a interesting recent (June 24, 2010) article on the US
DoD's news site (, which quote Kris
"the chief of internet protocol for the [Dod]", as saying:

 "{the DoD} philosophy is one that when a component has a mission need
or a
 business case to move to IPv6, then they can do that ... It's driven by
 their need rather than an overall [Department of Defense] mandate."

(The complete article is at:

This seems a significant change in course from that given in the
Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Interim Transition Guidance" of September 29,
which said that:

 "the DoD has established the goal of transitioning all DoD networking
 the next generation of the Internet Protocol, IPv6, by fiscal year (FY)

The date slippage is not a big deal, I'm ignoring that. What is of more
interest is that it appears (from the news story) that there has been a
further* change of course on IPv6 adoption, from 'we _are_ going to
transition' to 'in cases where there is a monetary or operational case
convert, it will happen, but otherwise not'.

Does this surprise anyone with experience with the DOD ? It doesn't me.

It sound to me like a case for the phrase often used by my late colleague
Mervyn Hine at CERN, when the management performed a U-turn: "Aha! Reality
broken in again."

The fact is that official mandates are not a very good reason for
upgrading systems. Running out of a resource is a much better one.



Can anyone shed any light on this apparent change in policy?



* The only other policy course change I am aware of is the one from
16, 2005 ("Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Policy Update"), which

 "... waiver submissions for programs not transitioning to IPv6 by
 Henceforth, IPv6 waivers are not required by DoD CIO policy."

(The original September 29, 2003 policy had said "If the IPv6 capable
criteria {for any DoD acquistion} cannot be met, a waiver will be

I suppose that technically the seeming current course fits within that
policy, but it still seems to be a change in emphasis and direction.
Ietf mailing list

Ietf mailing list

Ietf mailing list

Ietf mailing list
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>