On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 4:25 PM, 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. 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
I fully expect to see information about IPv6 readiness start becoming a required item on quarterly SEC filings for publicly owned companies that depend on additional IP space being available in order to grow their business. In light of the recent financial meltdowns, and post-Enron SOx compliance requirements, no public company is going to want to face charges that they knowingly mislead their shareholders about the future viability of their company, and of their stock, if they based their business growth around the availability of IPv4 addresses, knowing that supply was on the verge of running out. I'll wager that within 18 months, if you're at a publicly traded company, your CFO will be coming to *you* (or your IP administrator) on a quarterly basis to validate the viability of your IP address plan before signing off on the SEC filings and annual audits of the company, to make sure they're not the ones holding the bag in case the company suddenly can't sign on any new customers. Matt