|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
From: tvest@eyeconomics.com In-Reply-To: <001e01caa023$330b5280$9921f780$@com> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:34:52 -0500 To: "TJ" <trejrco@gmail.com> Cc: 'NANOG' <nanog@nanog.org> Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org On Jan 28, 2010, at 9:07 AM, TJ wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: tvest@eyeconomics.com [mailto:tvest@eyeconomics.com] >> Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 08:12 >> To: Richard Barnes >> Cc: NANOG >> Subject: Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials >=20 > <SNIP> >=20 >> But then that begs the question of why lots of other very large = retail >> Internet access providers have not indicated that they're committed = to the >> same course of action (?). >> They're certainly not the only provider that employs a public IP = address- >> intensive access model, so where are the other retail IPv6 trial >> announcements/pre-announcements? >=20 > Other providers are moving in that direction, atleast a couple are (as = a > swag) 6-18 months behind Comcast ...=20 >=20 > /TJ I have no particular reason to to doubt that claim, and lots of reasons = to actively hope that you are right. That said, the appearance of more public commitments like this -- and = sooner rather than later -- could make a large difference, e.g., by = reducing the general level of uncertainty (and uncertainty-amplifying = speculation) during the terminal stages of IPv4 allocation. While no commercial entity would (and none should) willingly make such a = public commitment before they're ready, it would be prudent to consider = the potential downsides of that looming uncertainty when making = judgements about how "ready" (or perhaps "ready enough") should be = defined. TV=20
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |