On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:25:12 -0700 Zaid Ali <zaid@zaidali.com> wrote:
On 10/19/10 3:58 PM, "Mark Andrews" <marka@isc.org> wrote:
Adding is seperate IPv6 server is a work around and runs the risk of being overloaded.
And what a wonderful problem to have! You can show a CFO a nice cacti graph of IPv6 growth so you can justify him/her to sign off on IPv6 expenses. A CFO will never act unless there is a real business problem.
When did CFOs run the company? If you're taking this decision to C level management, the CIO, CTO or the CEO should be the ones making the decision. They direct where money goes, not the CFO. The easy business case for IPv6 is insurance. At some point in the relatively near future there may be content or services that are only available over IPv6. Investing in IPv6 deployment now is insurance against not being able to access that content when you may need to in the future. Do your management want to miss out on being able to access the next IPv6-only Google, Salesforce.com, etc., when it is critical to the business? Somebody in the organisation will have responsibility for ensuring continued and reliable access to services the company needs, and if that includes Internet access, then IPv6 is going to become an essential part of that continued and reliable Internet access.
There are some of us here who have management with clue but there are many that don't, sadly this is the majority and a large contributor to the slow adoption of IPv6.
Zaid