Brian,
Michel Py wrote:
v
|
/\
+---------+ / \ +------------+
| Upgrade |__/ ? \__| Give money |
| To IPv6 | \ / | to Michel |
+---------+ \ / +------------+
\/
Mmmmm. Tough call.
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Yes, it is. It's called long term strategic investment
versus short term profit taking. That's a very tough call.
If Boeing had rolled out IPv6 in 1993-1994 when Eric wrote RFC1687 it
would not have done anything to their bottom line as of today and wasted
my money. If they had deployed 5 years ago there still would be no
return as of today and if they deployed today I see no return (in
reduced operating costs) for 5 years. As a shareholder my best interest
so far has been not to deploy. My instructions are: keep an eye on the
situation, if there is a change in conditions that means IPv6 buck could
bring bang _then_ go for it; in the mean time put my cash where it does
bring some bang, either by developing new products or by paying me
dividends 4 times a year.
As long as other shareholders (especially the ones who work there and
likely have scores of unvested shares) think the same way, this is the
deal.
Eliot Lear wrote:
Boeing has enough devices and networks that it could on its own
probably exhaust a substantial portion of remaining IPv4 address
space we have now. They certainly have more than a /8's worth,
and that poses RFC1918 problems
Boeing has 159,000 employees. RFC1918 space is 17,891,328 addresses.
That's more than 100 IP addresses per employee, I think Eric can manage.
That being said, I do acknowledge that larger companies such as global
ISPs do have a problem with the RFC1918 space being too small. This
brings the debate of what to do with class E, either make it extended
private space or make it global unicast.
Michel.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf