Re: [tae] The internet architecture

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?

> 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.

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.

(not that this helps IPv6 any, of course)

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