Re: [tae] The internet architecture

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> writes:

> Thomas Narten wrote:
> > Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> writes:
> > 
> >> There were also a bazillion deployed applications that would never be
> >> upgraded to deal with Y2K.  Somehow people managed.  But part of how
> >> they managed was by replacing some applications rather than
> >> upgrading them.
> > 
> > There were clear business motivations for ensuring that apps survived
> > Y2K appropriately. There is no similar brick wall with IPv4 address
> > exhaustion.

> more like a padded wall with embedded spikes?

More like a swamp, with steam rising from dark looking places. But
still a fair amount of firm ground if you can stay on a narrow and
careful path, though it's hard to tell because one can't see very far
and the swamp looks very big...

But looking back, we are already pretty far in the swamp, so it's not
clear exactly what is changing or how much worse things can or will
get continuing the current trajectory, so why not continue on the
current course just a little bit longer...

> > Actually, the real barrier to upgrading applications is lack of
> > incentive. No ROI.  It's not about technology at all. It's about
> > business cases.

> I suppose it follows that people don't actually need those applications
> to work in order to continue doing business... in which case, of course
> they shouldn't upgrade them.

Keith, this is umbelievably simplisitic logic. Try the following
reality check. The applications run today. Important things would
break if they were turned off. But there is no money to pay for an
upgrade (by the customer) because the budget is only so big, and the
current budget was more focussed on beefing up security and trying to
get VoIP running. Or, the vendor doesn't have an upgrade because the
product is EOL, and the customer can't afford to buy a replacement for
it (again for a number of different reasons). Or, the vendor does have
an upgraded product, but it requires running the latest version of the
product, which doesn't run on the OS release you happen to be running
(and can't change for various reasons), and would require new hardware
on top of things because the new product/OS is a memory pig, or was
rewritten in Java, etc., etc.

> Either that, or the people who are making these decisions don't really
> understand what's important to keeping their businesses running... and
> those businesses will fail.

They may understand very well. But a simple cost/benefit analysis (in
terms of $$ and/or available technical resources) says they can't
afford to upgrade.

Happens all the time. Why do you think people run old software for
years and years and years?

Thomas
_______________________________________________
tae mailing list
tae@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tae