In message <DA95983C-71F1-4AA6-B431-2F2FFD515F33@beckman.org>, Mel Beckman writ es:
There is most certainly a cost to IPv6, especially in a large, complex deployment, where everything requires acceptance testing. And I'm sure you realize that IPv6 only is not an option. I agree that it would have been worth the cost, which would have been just a small fraction of the total. The powers that be chose not to incur it now. But we did deploy only IPv6 gear and systems, so it can probably be turned up later for that same incremental cost.
-mel via cell
Since you have IPv6 capable gear your acceptance testing should be including the IPv6 side of it so there are no saving there if you are doing your job correctly. It is hard to go back to the suppliers N years down the track and then say "This gear isn't working for IPv6" and request a return / fix. Turning on IPv6 later will ultimately cost more than doing it from the start. You have to manage the potential disruption. The difference in perception between "teething troubles" and "you may break the service" is huge. If you havn't done proper acceptance testing or missed something there will be replacement costs. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org