RE: stable addressing

["Grovesteen, Harold" <Grovesteen@aafes.com>]

Jim,

Having seen these documents before their public publication, I am well aware of this position.  While the DOD's adoption may have nothing the do with multihoming, as a multihomed organization that must communicate with DOD via the public Internet, it has everything to do with multihoming for us.  It was this very policy that caused my organization to start tracking multi6.

Harold Grovesteen,
Army and Air Force Exchange Service

-----Original Message-----
From: Bound, Jim [mailto:jim.bound@hp.com]
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 11:14 AM
To: Fleischman, Eric; Tim Chown; Multi6 List
Subject: RE: stable addressing


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
> 
> 
>