So why is "IPv4 with longer addresses" a problem anyway?

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

On 5/24/2010 12:50 PM, Doug Barton wrote:

>
> So my question is, other than longer addresses, what are the benefits to
> IPv6 that I can point clients to which will help them justify the
> expense of the upgrade?
>

I think this is the wrong way to look at it.

If your client's looking at moving to IPv6 as carrying a significant 
expense, then I think that your going about it the wrong way.

What your client should be doing is demanding IPv6 in all NEW
applications and devices they are fielding.  If they don't have
IPv6 support among all hosts in their current network then I'm
sure they have some hosts with IPv6 support.  Any Win Vista & 7 system 
would have IPv6 support for example.

Ultimately the day will come that some external reason - perhaps there's
a website they want to get at that's IPv6 only, perhaps there's a new
application that demands IPv6 - will make them want IPv6.

At that time, if they have been properly purchasing things, then just
about everything they have will be IPv6-compliant, and turning it on
will merely involve some labor.

Does your client have Win 2003 servers for example?  Do they have Macs?
Well, if they have W2003 servers but no Macs, then one day they might
end up buying a Mac - and on that day, discover some of the limitations
of using the SMB client in MacOS X to access those Win 2003 servers.  On
that day they would be pleasantly surprised to find that Win2003 server
has had the capability of providing AFP services to that new Mac all
this time.  Maybe they didn't spec AFP as a requirement when they bought
that 2003 license - but I guarantee you that somebody did, which is why
Microsoft stuck it in there.

Getting your client "ready" for IPv6 merely means educating them a bit.
A little bit of education injected into purchasing decisions can do a
tremendous amount.


Ted