Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

IPv6 Transition to Cost US $75 Billion?

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the helping-the-national-debt dept.

The Internet 462

darthcamaro writes "There are alot of reasons why the US isn't moving as quickly as Japan and Europe in migrating to IPv6. One of those reasons is likely cost. An article on Internetnews.com cites an unreleased 'Dept. of Commerce report estimating it will take $25-$75 billion to pay for the transition.'"

cancel ×

462 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

$25-$75 billion (5, Insightful)

biocute (936687) | more than 8 years ago | (#14242995)

$50B difference is huge, this goes to show nobody knows what's going on.

I guess USA's high internet adoption and usage actually hinder its move.

This reminds me of China's ability to build its new Shanghai rail based on the magnetic levitation system, while other well-established rail-using nations like Singapore may find it difficult to switch. Talk about right place right time.

Re:$25-$75 billion (1)

ProfaneBaby (821276) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243042)

It's hard, very hard, to know exactly what hardware every company has, and more importantly, how that hardware is used.

The vendors may know what the big guys have (how many IPV4-only routers and switches have been sold to company X, for example), but you still have to know how that's going to be used. You could go native IPV6 on all public facing hardware, and IPV4 on internal only (perhaps on disconnected networks), so even if you know how much hardware exists for IPV4, that doesn't tell you how much has to be replaced...

It's a difficult problem, and it's not going to be much fun. As a netop myself, I'm slightly more worried about 16bit AS numbers than IPV6, though.

Re:$25-$75 billion (4, Insightful)

lgw (121541) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243066)

Eventually though, all the IPv4-only equipment will reach the end of it's natural life, and be upgraded to IPv6-compatible equipment, and the IPv6 support won't cost anything extra. Unless you're upgrading early just to jump on IPv6, there rally no equipment cost at all. Sure, there's some manpower cost in learning how IPv6 works, but that's the nature of the industry. This reports looks like an excuse for someone to not adopt quickly.

Re:$25-$75 billion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14243068)

It's sort of like going from the British Engineering System to metric. Most of our new engineering work is done in both BES and SI, but it's all the old stuff that prevents the switch. Once the infrastructure and technology is built, it is designed to operate for 50 or more years (I've seen steam turbines and reduction gears than have run constantly for 60 years). While there are tons of Euro-weenies that complain that we don't switch because of our stubbornness, they had a 50 year headstart without all the baggage from the latest period of the industrial revolution. And heck, give us a break, we did introduce the world's first decimal currency.

Re:$25-$75 billion (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14243083)

I guess USA's high internet adoption and usage actually hinder its move.

But even higher internet adoption in Europe and Japan doesn't hinder their moves, most strange.

Re:$25-$75 billion (1, Insightful)

luvirini (753157) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243202)

That is mostly because those people planning the infrastucture there are not all bound by quarterly results and can at times spend a bit extra now to avoid spending a lot later.

Re:$25-$75 billion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14243086)

$50B difference is huge, this goes to show nobody knows what's going on.

It's government. Aim for the midpoint, and double that = $100 billion.

Re:$25-$75 billion (5, Funny)

metternich (888601) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243099)

$50 Billion here, $50 Billion there, pretty soon you're talking real money...

Re:$25-$75 billion (1)

pHatidic (163975) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243155)

More likely it would take 25 billion if we did it today, but by the time we actually get around to doing it the cost will be 75 billion.

Re:$25-$75 billion (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14243294)

This reminds me of China's ability to build its new Shanghai rail based on the magnetic levitation system, while other well-established rail-using nations like Singapore may find it difficult to switch. Talk about right place right time.

Yeah. That's true. Early adopters (those who have implemented railroads in the last 150 years) can often get burned by the fast pace of technological change. Sometimes getting your hands on early technology isn't worth the costs. It's hard to justify a measley 100 years of railroad use when they could have just waited for magnetic levitation systems.

To think my grandparents wasted all that money on a party-line telephone, when they could have saved their money and done VoIP.

Re:$25-$75 billion (1)

Lord_Dweomer (648696) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243316)

'I guess USA's high internet adoption and usage actually hinder its move."

I also wonder if it is the population density that affects things as well. Remember, thats one of the reasons we're not all on 12mbit connections for $10/month. Its because we're all so damn spread out. But in places like China, you have to change far fewer main lines to get everybody (not that I claim to know what I'm talking about here, but it sounds right in theory at least).

Wrong angle (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14242996)

They should have focused on how it will *GROW* the economy by creating $75 Billion in new jobs and infrastructure.

Re:Wrong angle (3, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243033)

They should have focused on how it will *GROW* the economy by creating $75 Billion in new jobs and infrastructure.

Sorry, Charlie, but this administration couldn't give two bits for anything in silicon. It's all about petroleum, otherwise Michael Dell would be Secretary of Commerce.

Whatever you think you believe about this crop of economic vandals being pro-business you can just forget it, like any small business which has been infinitely more screwed by the oil price maniupulation than any jump in minimum wage or healthcare premium.

Re:Wrong angle (1)

Poltras (680608) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243203)

Hem! You _know_ oil is not going to last forever... don't you?

Re:Wrong angle (1)

luvirini (753157) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243220)

depends on: can they continue programming the electronic voting machines to give the results they want?

Re:Wrong angle (2, Funny)

Headcase88 (828620) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243295)

And that closes the circle right back to silicon! Looks like the administration does care about electronics after all ;)

Re:Wrong angle (1)

qbwiz (87077) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243078)

Maybe they should also focus on how it will crowd out investment in other things, by costing money that could be used for other things. Merely creating jobs that do something useless and creating worthless infrastructure wouldn't be a good use of money; we actually have to consider the value that we get out of it.

I'm not saying that converting to IPv6 is a bad thing. I'm merely saying that we have to consider if it's worth the money. If you want to go about creating jobs that do worthless things, why not divide the unemployed into two equal teams: those who screw nuts and bolts together for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, and those who unscrew those same nuts and bolts, 8 hours a day, 5 days a week? That would certainly create jobs, and I'm sure we'd need to increase our bolt- and nut-making infrastructure.

Even more wrong (1)

XanC (644172) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243193)

Wealth isn't created by spinning your wheels for no reason. It may well be that the transition is worth doing in the long run, but simply spending money for no reason isn't a net plus. It's why we don't tear down our houses and rebuild them every year.

Re:Wrong angle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14243356)

They should have focused on how it will *GROW* the economy by creating $75 Billion in new jobs and infrastructure.

And the way to grow jobs is to throw away those snowplows and force the use of spoons to shovel snow off of airport runways.

Fucking Japanese are morons. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14242999)

What is up with the see-through skirts [ebaumsworld.com] rave?

FIRST POST!

OMG LOL (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14243044)

That is the best idea ever.

i remember one time... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14243048)

i was at a party, kinda drunk, kinda stoned... but i remembered this!

my friend was commenting on some foreign nation, and he said 'those people are barbarians, still wiping their ass with their hands..'
and later on i was thinking about it and something awful occured to me.
some places it is still common to wipe your ass with your hand, and americans generally look down on that, but think about it for a second. that assures (usually) that the person would definately wash their hands when they leave the restroom (which most americans do not do) AND that also means that they generally washed their ass... however, in america we wipe the shit all over our ass with paper (!!!) and then usually leave the bathroom without washing our hands... it only takes one person to not wash their hand, that corrupts the doorknob for all the hand washers... but yeah, thats kinda fucked up isnt it? i bet some people in some far away place right now are thinking, 'those americans smear shit all over their ass... with paper!!!!'

eh ok im drunk/stoned... but its still fucked up, right?

Re:i remember one time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14243127)

As a general rule, your ass is cleaner than your hands. Penn and Teller did a great bit on this on Bullshit!

Re:i remember one time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14243158)

As a general rule, your ass is cleaner than your hands. Penn and Teller did a great bit on this on Bullshit!

as a general rule, i wouldn't trust penn and teller when it comes to ass related things. regardless of what they say.

Re:i remember one time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14243285)

What makes me cringe is when I got to a pub and you see blokes going for a piss, not washing their hands then grabbing a load of bar snacks. Never ever ever eat free peanuts/pork scratchings/cheese etc in a pub.

Yee-Ha! (2, Interesting)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243001)


A mini-tech boom! Cisco will profit an anyone who makes switches which allow your old IPv4 stuff to communicate will make a fortune.

i'm applying for a patent on decaffeinated, low-fat, sodium free, left-handed wholly organic ipv6 veeblefetzers, axolotls and potrzebies

Re:Yee-Ha! (1)

Carthag (643047) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243026)

Props for using potrzebie!

Cisco Isn' t The Answer, It's The Question (1)

cmholm (69081) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243293)

No, is the answer. Ok, I've been looking for an excuse to paraphrase someone's Windows-oriented .sig. Seriously, one of the problems with the Cisco gear we've gotten in the last few years is that while they'll route IPv6, the frickin' admin interface is still IPv4 only. Thanks, Cisco.

New proposed currency unit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14243008)

That's about a one-third of an Iraq War.

Re:New proposed currency unit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14243014)

Haha. Funniest comment I've seen all day! Cheers.

Re:New proposed currency unit (0, Flamebait)

Rainbird98 (186939) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243094)

No problem with the money, Iraqi oil will pay for it!

Where my mod points when I need 'em? (-1, Troll)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243118)

Up, up, up. The unit is also called a "Bush".

That's nothing... (5, Funny)

Aqua OS X (458522) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243009)

That's nothing.

With all the money we've saved from taxes well be able to... ohh wait, nevermind.

So... (-1, Redundant)

Spytap (143526) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243011)

...So it could take either 25 billion (admittedly a huge number) or THREE TIMES that already admittedly huge number? Thanks. That helps a lot.

Re:So... (1)

ctheory (938328) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243288)

/golfclap Not to mention, 50B is...I don't know...kind of a huge number to be throwing around as a cushion. Upper level management, even if it is Government, still doesn't have a f'ing clue about technology. Gotta love it.

Uh... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14243018)

How much money would be spent on upgrading routers and internet infrastructure anyway? I can claim that over the next 10 years internet infrastructure will cost over $100B, regardless of whether or not it's IPv6 compatable or not.

June 2008 deadline (2, Informative)

jhines (82154) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243270)

From the fine article,

"The government is supposed to be on a relatively rapid path toward IPv6 migration since the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) mandated (PDF file) this past August that the federal government move to IPv6 by June 2008."

But yes, there is an annual IT budget that is impacted by this.

What's needed? (2, Insightful)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243022)

Since this changeover is going to require something new, does anyone have a list or know of a place that talks about exactly what needs to be done to switch over to IPv6? Like routing tables, software upgrades/changes, hardware upgrades, network changeovers and what else?

Re:What's needed? (1)

Feyr (449684) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243280)

routers with beefier CPUs and ASICS, with load ands loads of ram.
consider that some routers come with 1 and 2 gigs of ram already, using the crude-and-wholly-underestimated number of 4x as much (128 bits vs 32 bits), without even accounting for the exponential increase in the possible number of routes (last week route count was 177k)... you get the idea.

and hundred thousands of man-hours to implement and test it all

in all practicality, ipv6 is flawed as it is, due to policies (thanks IANA!). you're basicly forced to renumber your network everytime you switch ISP for whatever reason. unless your name is MCI (which means you're the isp in the first place and won't ever have to renumber). anything under that gets screwed, from the small isp with 150-200 customers to the big one with 100k.

honest, i'm not deploying ipv6 anywhere just yet

Re:What's needed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14243340)

sif your mum's basement needs IPv6 anyway.

The most important question... (2, Insightful)

rbarreira (836272) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243028)

Is it really worth it?

Re:The most important question... (2)

Roj Blake (931541) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243133)

Is it really worth it?

You are missing the point. While it might appear that this should be a discussion about the costs and benefits of going to IPv6, this is really just an opportunity to bash america in general and it's current administration in particular.

Think I'm wrong? Read the posts. As I'm writing this the vast majority of posts have nothing at all to do with the subject at hand.

Re:The most important question... (1)

Roj Blake (931541) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243176)

Yes I realize I used it's instead of its. D'oh!

Re:The most important question... (1)

mnmn (145599) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243346)

When you call IANA to ask for 5 more IP addresses to use for new servers, and get the answer of "ummm uhhh umm.. heheh.. uhhh." then you'll feel its REALLY WORTH IT.

Until then, its billions going down the drain, or millions if you switch away from cisco hardware.

Outrageous (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14243029)

Twenty-five to Seventy-five Billion! That's maddness! Why ... we'd have to cancel the war in Iraq for a month or two to pay for that!

K

Re:Outrageous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14243263)

No you fool, then the terrorists will have won!!!

Re:Outrageous (0, Offtopic)

maddog2o_2o (577019) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243306)

Oh sure, when I don't bother to log in I get lots of upmods! :-P

Kevin

PS - I know this is shameless and bad form but it honestly cracked me up ...

Re:Outrageous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14243335)

Surely you know by now that just about any crack at the current US administration will get you modded up on slashdot...

Re:Outrageous (1)

mnmn (145599) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243329)

Or more simply, use headless Linux boxes instead of rediculous cisco 3700 and 3800 routers.

Then it'll cost next to squat.

Sounds like the amount that could be saved... (5, Insightful)

ShatteredDream (636520) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243037)

If we eliminated most of the fraud, waste and abuse in the government [cato.org] . With the Department of Education not being able to account for a majority of its budget, the Defense Department losing over $12B of tax dollars in Iraq and all of the pork that goes through Congress, I can't help but think that if the Congress didn't have the power to spend money on "internal improvements," we'd not be in this problem today.

The governments in this country waste so damn much of our GDP on pure bullshit that if we actually had fiscal responsibility, this would be non-issue. We have a GDP of $11T, does anyone actually think that if the costs associated with compliance, regulation, tax payments, etc. were much easier that corporate America would be bitching about this transition? It'd be just a drop in the bucket.

Re:Sounds like the amount that could be saved... (1)

RebelWithoutAClue (578771) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243322)

If everyone indeed got rid of all the wasteful expenditure, what makes you think they'd want to pay for this ?

Re:Sounds like the amount that could be saved... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14243342)

The Department of Defense does not account for any of its budget. They haven't been required to for a very long time. If you wonder where the inefficiency in the United States government is, it is in profligate spending of that department.

Currently, the Republican party controls the house. the senate. and the executive branch. So, if you (or anyone else in these United States) would like to make a change in the status quo, get in touch with your representative and see how responsive they are to your needs.

Re:Sounds like the amount that could be saved... (1)

darkmeridian (119044) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243358)

Invest on the IRS. It is estimated that every dollar spent on more auditing will return four dollars. The IRS extrapolates from its audits that there are billions lost each year due to noncompliance but does not have the wherewithal to audit all the taxpayers it wants. Somehow, it is not politically feasible to fund the IRS.

What is the basis for the cost? (5, Interesting)

dotslashdot (694478) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243041)

The FA makes no mention of WHY it will cost that much. I don't know anything about IP6, but $75b makes it seem like they plan on rewiring the whole government. The article cites that "one speaker" estimated the cost between $25-$75b. Is the speaker trying to just jack up the price? Perhaps someone can explain what is involved so we can decide if the prices quoted are reasonable.

Re:What is the basis for the cost? (2, Informative)

tuomoks (246421) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243177)

A very good question (IMHO) and I know "something" about IPv6. Now, of course, if that estimate is like many other I have seen in government/corporation contarcs, like $1 million modem programs, $2 million for simple SQL queries, and so on, it may even be a low estimate. I have real problems with companies billing millions of standard UDP/TCP/IP, encryption, compress, etc interfaces. But what do I know - I just write those as slow and as complicated as I'm told. IPv6 is not "rocket sciense" but a rather well defined protocoll which, amazingly, works with IPv4.

Re:What is the basis for the cost? (2, Insightful)

Saint V Flux (915378) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243268)

Essentially it means increasing the length of IP addresses (because we only have a finite number and with IPv6 they claim there's enough IP address for every grain of sand on the planet) and IPv6 includes more information in the header to allow for better efficiency / functionality. As a result of this you'd need new routers, switches, and possibly network cards. The new routers and such would have to be IPv6 and IPv4 compatible because you can't switch them all at the same time. Obviously, it will cost money to make the change, but I think the $25-$75 billion is just plain made up to try to scare people.

Fiscal Discipline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14243051)

Since when does this Administration care about cost?

Sounds Like BSA Estimate (4, Funny)

faqmaster (172770) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243054)

Who did that estimate? The BSA?

A LOT is TWO WORDS (0, Offtopic)

deafpluckin (776193) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243057)

Dear Slashdot editors,

Please don't perpetuate the misconception that "alot" is an English word. It's TWO WORDS the first is "a" and the second is "lot".

Thanks,
Concerned Slashdot reader

Re:A LOT is TWO WORDS (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14243088)

Agreed; alot of people make that mistake.

Re:A LOT is TWO WORDS (0, Flamebait)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243139)

dist thou not knoweth how thee shalt speak?!

Language changes, get used to it.

Re:A LOT is TWO WORDS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14243165)

Language may change but to spell a lot alot means you don't understand the language to begin with.

Re:A LOT is TWO WORDS (0, Flamebait)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243195)

No, it means we live in a free society where each and every individual gets to define the language through daily use. To spell "dist" as "did" was once considered by some as ghastly as spelling "a lot" as "alot". Get over it.

Re:A LOT is TWO WORDS (1)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243248)

Great, a moron apologist. Slashdot definitely needs more of you.

Re:A LOT is TWO WORDS (1)

allende (831648) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243262)

I thought languange was something we all had to agree upon, otherwise if I make up my own language whichever way I like, how can you possible understand me? That speech about free individual and blah... blah... sounds all too nice, but it is just plain silly in this case.

Re:A LOT is TWO WORDS (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243327)

We all know what 'alot' means.

Re:A LOT is TWO WORDS (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14243199)

You suck... like.. alot.

Re:A LOT is TWO WORDS (3, Funny)

HTTP Error 403 403.9 (628865) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243244)

Dear Slashdot editors,

Please don't perpetuate the misconception that "alot" is an English word. It's TWO WORDS the first is "a" and the second is "lot".

Thanks, Concerned Slashdot reader

Your rite - their is many loosers that have pour grammer.

Ahwwww... common!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14243073)

U CANN...

Greetings from the losers :-)

And the contract goes to... (4, Funny)

PetoskeyGuy (648788) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243077)

Haliburton's new IPv6 division.

The reliability of the source? (2, Insightful)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243081)

The Department of Commerce does not have a very good track record of forecasting market trends. I think this report is especially callous as investors might heed this "warning" and invest in IPv6 companies prematurely.

_No one_ knows IPv6's cost. The market will see a few early adopters, then a steadily growing medium-sized business buy-in, followed by a boom of users or a bust due to newer technologies.

For a government agency to print these assumptions makes me think they either needed some media spotlight or the researchers wanted their stocks to go up.

but (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14243087)

how much of that is money that would have been spent anyway? Upgrading routers and stuff when it's time came around to be replaced - it may take some time, but if all the new equipment bought is IPv6 compatable then it will only actually take the flick of a switch to make the transition - it just may take more time until the complete transition is possible.

Re:but (1)

luvirini (753157) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243255)

A raising number of all types of Networking gear is fully ipv6 ready without anything special. I was actually surprised a bit at buying a very low end home router/gateway and finding it to have full ipv6 configration options. Thus in few years the big cost will be the actual configuration of things, not the hardware or software.

Dirty little secret... (1, Insightful)

joey_knisch (804995) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243096)

Most routers run *nix. IPv6 transition thus requires a "firmware" update.

Not that most equipment companies will do this mind you. They are quite happy having you purchase brand new networking equipment.

Wikipedia a haven for pedophiles? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14243104)

Check out this article at an anti-pedophile website. Makes for some interesting reading.

http://www.perverted-justice.com/opinions/?article =11 [perverted-justice.com]

IPv6 is a mess (3, Informative)

Marrow (195242) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243105)

http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html [cr.yp.to]

Do we really have to throw this much money into the volcano?

tfa (1)

convolvatron (176505) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243141)

this is entire estimate is meaningless. v6 was designed to
be rolled out incrementally. no one beleives that all
the endpoints are going to be upgraded.

so if some of the major backbones start peering v6, thats
a good definition for switching, but i seriously doubt its
going to involve tens of billions of dollars.

the incremental cost of new larger customers being assigned
v6 blocks instead of v4, and having to push it to the endpoints
or put in nats? the dns servers (the only thing of any
substance that was mentioned)...do the v4 roots cost billions
of dollars a year?

What's the cost (4, Insightful)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243147)

not to make the transition?

Holy Address Space, Batman! (3, Insightful)

DanielMarkham (765899) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243148)

That's a lot of bucks, but studies like these are easy to take in isolation instead of looking at the big picture.

The U.S. economy is what? About 12 Trillion dollars a year? [cia.gov] In 1999 the internet economy was closing in on 150 Billion, by now it has to be through the roof. [j-bradford-delong.net]

Poor software? It costs over 200 Billion a year (sorry no link). You have to put these numbers in perspective. When you are dealing with 300 million folks or so, and the world's largest free market, any kind of estimate for anything is going to be big. The common cold costs over $30 Billion a year. [wikipedia.org]

Just keep it all in perspective. The internet economy will blow right through this obstacle if it gets in the way of sales



My Blog [news2lose.com]

Re:Holy Address Space, Batman! (1)

Valacosa (863657) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243235)

In 1999 the internet economy was closing in on 150 Billion, by now it has to be through the roof.


And in 1928 the American economy was simply booming. By now we should have gold paved streets and...and...diamond encrusted toilet paper!

Umm... (3, Funny)

kadathseeker (937789) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243153)

Just phase out IPv4. Have all new equipment/software include IPv6 by default. Time for "Best of Bash.org":

Some cool info: Tibeten monks, after twenty years or so of practise in the Himalaya, control their brain stem - they can control their heart beat, blood pressure etc.
After thirty years they can connect to the internet purely by meditation, setting TCP stacks in their neurons and stuff.
Right now I am chatting with a monk who is sitting naked in an ice storm on his towel, his only possesion.
He's using ipv6.

I blame Al Gore (1, Funny)

Daveznet (789744) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243154)

This is all Al Gore's fault; he invited the internet. If it wasnt for him none of this would have happened.

brought to you by your friends at Cisco !! (-1, Offtopic)

mAIsE (548) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243157)

and Cisco thanks you all !!

Somebody Must Be Able To Help (0, Offtopic)

Niraj59 (935921) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243161)

The last nine frontpage stories were posted by ScuttleMonkey. Someone on /. must have a job opening for him. Maybe * * Beatles-Beatles can hook him up. ;)

Cost vs investment vs opportunity vs efficiency (4, Informative)

shanen (462549) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243164)

Exactly the same kind of foolishness that keeps the US from going metric. If you prefer to see it as an opportunity to invest in new metric tools or IPv6 hardware and software, then it looks like an opportunity. The people who fight against such changes want to harp on the total costs, and generally refuse to consider rational transition strategies.

To me, it mostly comes down to efficiencies. The reason we measure things in the first place is so we can perform mathematical operations on the resulting numbers. Metric units are easier and more efficient for the mathematical operations, and therefore confer some competitive advantage on the people using them. It might be a large or small advantage, but it's always there.

IPv4 has some design limitations. IPv6 will address many of those problems, and the networks (and countries) that use that system will have competitive advantage.

What I find amusing is that many of the same people fighting against IPv6 on grounds of cost are the same people who want to argue the damage of Hurricane Katrina wasn't so bad. After all, it will give us the "opportunity" to invest billions of dollars in rebuilding things. Hey, why don't we destroy a major city every year? Look at all the "opportunities" we'd have. However, moving to IPv6 is NOT to be equated with random destruction, but is rather a rational form of evolution.

We aren't running out of IPv4 space (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14243171)

http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space [iana.org]

grep for "iana reserved"

Time to invest... (1)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243228)

Time to invest in Cisco.... stock price is low now... with $25-75B....

And it's because... (1)

Nicolay77 (258497) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243245)

... IPv6 doesn't embed the IPv4 address space and everybody has to buy a new IP and have all domains with TWO different IPs to make the transition possible?

This really is a shortsightedness of their protocol design. Until now all IP versions have contained the address space of the previous version. Until IPv6 came around.

Ipod transition? (-1, Offtopic)

DrCode (95839) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243253)

I need to get my glasses checked. At first, I read the title as "IPod transition to cost..." and thought how that's a lot of money to spend on Nano's (or whatever), knowing that there will probably be another new model coming to replace that within the year.

Transition guide is needed (1)

antarctican (301636) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243256)

What I most want is a decent howto on IPv6 transition. I know the basics, I know the theory of how it's suppose to work. But I'll be damned if I know how numbering works (I know there's some odd pre or suffix in the numbering, no?), I have no idea what theses AAAA records are, etc.

And before someone says to just go read the RFCs, no, what needs to be made is a transition guide for those already familiar with IPv4. Myself, and most others, probably don't want to sit reading dry RFCs. Give me a lesson pack on how DNS records differ, or how the numbering works in relation to IPv4.

That will be one of the most useful things in getting techies prepared for the change.

And if something like that already exists (it probably does, I just haven't found it yet), someone please post it so we can all get up to speed.

If I understood it, I'd probably take the extra time to make all my future software IPv6 compatible.

75 billion? who cares, it isn't going to happen (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14243277)

IPv6 isn't going to happen, because it doesn't need to happen. I can get to all the web sites I need. So can you. My coffee pot isn't on the internet, and if it needed to be, I'd use NAT, or invent some new multiplexor protocol that sits on IPv4. Don't you people realize this???

I love the guy up their who said IPv6 will *create* $75billion in the economy. How the hell will it do that?

I'll issue my usual challenge to the IPv6-fans: If you love IPv6 so much, cut yourself off from IPv4 completely. Don't use an IPv4 address. Don't access IPv4 sites. That's what has to happen for IPv6 to be a reality. If you're running IPv6 on top of or alongside IPv4, you haven't "switched over" yet. You're just goofing around with some nonstandard network protocol. Might as well use fidonet.

Go ahead, I'm waiting......

No tax write-offs (1)

Dekortage (697532) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243301)

And, sadly, all the old IPv4 gear can't simply be shipped to Third World countries for a big tax break -- well, it could, but it won't work if everyone else is switching to IPv4. Back to the haves and have-nots.

This is the commerce department estimate... (5, Insightful)

Bored Huge Krill (687363) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243310)

...and therefore assumes that it will be carried out under a no-bid contract awarded to Halliburton, who will bill Cat-5 cables at $10,000 each. Sounds a fair estimate to me :-)

$75 Billion isn't that much (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14243324)

$75 Billion? So What? The United States government spent a lot more than that on Iraq!

Mis-allocation of funds, thanks to Bush Neocons!! (1)

v3xt0r (799856) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243331)

So let me get this straight, we can easily afford to spend $100 billion to conqour Mesopotamia, but we can't allocate an (almost) equal amount of money to reinforce (or keep up with) our technical/communications infrastructure, even though it IS a matter of national security?

Interesting priorities!! =(

Is that all? (2, Funny)

Xaroth (67516) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243341)

I mean, if they really think it can be done for that, I'd be willing to pony up the $25 myself.

Oh, wait.

The cost of increasing the address space (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14243354)

The point of the transition to IPv6 is the larger address space that comes with it. (IPv4 uses 32 bit addresses, IPv6 128). The currently available 2^32 IP addresses is more than sufficient address space for today's computing platforms. IPv6s very, very much larger address space will provide address space to meet the expectations of rapid growth in internet addressable embedded devices. Still, a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're starting to talk serious money. $75billion sounds like a lot to put all the toasters in the US online.

Where's this cost coming from? (4, Funny)

jd (1658) | more than 8 years ago | (#14243355)

  • Windows Updates: Free. Microsoft Research already provides a stack which is (therefore) already paid for.
  • Linux Updates: Well, you want the USAGI patches if you want top-of-the-line IPv6 support, but either way it's free.
  • *BSD Updates: The KAME stack is already in there.
  • Cisco Updates: Any reasonably recent version of IOS or PIX will have IPv6 as standard. Therefore it's already paid for, therefore it is free. If you've already got a support contract, updating the firmware should also be free.
  • E-Mail Updates: Most e-mail clients (and servers) should already support IPv6
  • Web Updates: Apache is about the only server that matters and that already supports IPv6. I believe all the major clients do, too
  • Multiplayer Games: Probably the one area that doesn't have IPv6 as standard, but it should be possible to provide IPv4-over-IPv6 tunnels for those


As far as I can tell, the sum total cost for all of this uber-expensive upgrade would cost (in old English currency) about 2'/6, and would take the United States less time than it currently takes for Joe Average to reboot from a BSOD. For this reason, I would like to make the US Government and the various Internet providers a special deal. I will set up IPv6 for them, with full one-year warranty, for a mere $15 billion, paid in advance. If this sounds satisfactory, just mail me the keys to the server rooms and passwords for the servers and routers, and I'll get started.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>