-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I would urge potential sponsors to insist that V6 is on the agenda as
a condition of funding, both meeting sponsors and Beer 'N Gear.it is possible that vendors might not want that story told on their
behalf... there are still a significant number of vendors without any
story for v6(without a reasonable story I'd say)
For what it's worth, I won't be at the next NANOG -- it falls at the
same time as MAAWG, and I already had planned to be there to give
an invited technical presentation. I will try to be at the next one
in Albuquerque, though...
Having said that, I would be interested to hear the NANOG community
input on two particular topics:
[1] The results of the "Report from the IAB Workshop on Routing
and Addressing", and it's effect on IPv6 multihoming on the Internet
routing system, and;
[2] Vince Fuller's statistics that he has presented several times
in several different venues.
[1] http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~lixia/draft-iab-raws-report.txt
[2]
http://www.iab.org/about/workshops/routingandaddressing/vaf-iab-raws.pdf
I think before people start rushing off to deploy v6, there are
some serious issues that need to be addressed, regardless of v4
resource exhaustion.
- - ferg
p.s. If there are newer versions of the above two documents available,
mea culpa -- these should at least illustrate my point...