Should the change be proactive (made before there is a crisis) or reactive (wait until there is a crisis)?

Question

The explosion of growth in the Internet has had a dramatic effect on the need for TCP/IP address space. IPv6 has been proposed as a solution to this problem. However, it is not without cost. Given the changes needed for a new addressing scheme, at what point you recommend that businesses change from the TCP/IP scheme of today to IPv6 or its successor? Consider implementation costs, business continuity, replacement of existing hardware and software, and the time needed for reprogramming in your response.

Answer 1

I did not realize there is a crisis without this change. I think they need to first learn about such a crisis before they will actually support it or use it in their business. Just because we have a bomb alert, does not mean we will launch a bomb ourselves before we have confirmed the alert. Businesses are scared to upfront implementation costs for something they do not understand or have yet to learn about. If they are aware of the risks and they have proof of how it can save them, they will certainly invest. However, they will not invest in something unless they know for fact that this proposition might be a vital solution. DRS (Disaster recovery) is a vital part of business solutions. The investment for a product that will promote business continuity is far more important than cost. We have a million programmers applying for jobs in the IT department every week...reprogramming is not a concern for them. Its part of the Developers salary that they already have the resources for, so it will not be an issue. The only issue is whether or not the implementation will be a positive affect for the business and how we can have that approved...thats the only hard part of the entire system. Making it work isnt the problem, getting it approved and initiated is the hard part.

Answer 2

Two answers:
First, once Vista and Longhorn become introduced to the business, an examination of their "native" IPv6 should be made. If the software comes as touted (doubtful), the switch might be advantageous.
Second, with a solid private IP addressing scheme the limit of existing public IP addresses should not be a significant issue to any business. The TCO of such a switch is prohibitive without a clearly demonstrable need.
In short, unless new technology makes it VERY attractive, the switch to IPv6 should only be made if you have to.

Answer 3

IPV6 takes into account IPV4 addressing, so readdressing everything isn't necessary.

I hope you get an A on your homework.

Annorax64