The DOD has required the goal that all operations must be fully transitioned to IPv6 operational by 2008. New systems should begin to be IPv6 capable today, unless a waiver is supplied with rationale. I can send pointers to the public briefings with IPv6 from various processes in place now to make this happen. Attached is the memorandum from the DOD. The memoranda can speak for themselves attached. It is not a matter of being enamored Eric it is a matter of superior opearational capabilities to support the warfighter and save lives and further support the efforts for net-centricity, which I assume as DOD contractor your familiar with and the JFCOM directives too. Again this really has nothing to do with Multihoming. If any are interested I am doing a brief in June at the annual Army IT conference on the benefits of IPv6 to DOD Net-Centricity and selected as one of the speakers or I can provide you with my brief at Joint Interoperability Test Command 14th Annual Interoperability Conference this past March and pointer to public briefings where IPv6 is part of all programs I saw presented. So the DOD is bit more than the word enamored with IPv6 as Eric stated. Also Asia will be IPv6 operational extensively by 2005 and already has 9 million IPv6 production subscribers in Japan. Not test beds. What we have to do here is fix the multihoming problem or forces in the market will fix it for us. As is the case with the transition mechanisms in deployment now not waiting any longer on v6ops. Regards, /jim > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org > [mailto:owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fleischman, Eric > Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 2:26 PM > To: Tim Chown; Multi6 List > Subject: RE: stable addressing > > >If an organisation wishes to continue with NAT, it might as > well stick with > >IPv4 though? What's the gain then from having IPv6? > > Tim, > > This is an excellent question. An organization may indeed > strive to continue using IPv4, as I stated would probably be > the case in RFC 1687 (see > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1687.txt). However, there are many > factors that also war against that position such as: > > 1) Apple has made IPv6 be its default deployment setting. > Microsoft plans to do so in a future O/S release. Other > vendors are expressing similar intentions. $$ is an important > factor in influencing networking decisions. > > 2) Some governments (e.g., USA's DoD) are apparently enamored > with IPv6. Should they eventually require that IPv6 be used > to communicate with them, then those needing to communicate > with them will comply. > > 3) As I mentioned in RFC 1687, should a "killer app" be > deployed requiring IPv6, then the Fortune 1000 *will* deploy > it. Having said this, I personally believe that virtually all > of today's articulated advantages of IPv6 over IPv4 are > either theoretically-true-but-not-operationally-true or else > pure marketing hype. However, should this change, then the > whole deployment algorithm changes. There is a lot of > positive potential within IPv6 that hopefully will be > leveraged (e.g., QoS, IPSec, the issues the Multi6 WG are addressing). > > 4) Dual stacks are a pain. It pains users, it pains ISPs, and > it pains vendors. There are many reasons why the world as a > whole will seek to simplify its computer and network > deployments. If IPv6 flies then the world will probably > standardize upon it. If it doesn't, then a modified IPv4 will > probably remain king. It is currently too early to know how > things will turn out. When I imagine what each alternative > would probably look like in 2020, I hope that IPv6 will pan out. > > --Eric > > >
Attachment:
DoD_IPv6_Memo_092903.pdf
Description: DoD_IPv6_Memo_092903.pdf
Attachment:
DoD_IPv6_Memorandum.pdf
Description: DoD_IPv6_Memorandum.pdf