[123407] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IP4 Space - the lie
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Saku Ytti)
Sat Mar 6 13:50:31 2010
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 20:49:58 +0200
From: Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <bcff0fba1003061007h32317d48scb924e202c2b3756@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On (2010-03-06 10:07 -0800), Cameron Byrne wrote:
> Folks are risking their business and their customers if they don't
> have an IPv6 plan, and when i say IPv6 plan i mean IPv6-only. This
> list has already examined how polluted the remaining free IPv4 blocks
> are ... and as others have pointed out, CGN will be an expensive and
> poor QoE reality for those clinging to IPv4
I'm personally afraid that EU+US companies may not see the risk. Majority
of people in EU+US who want broadband and have purchase power for the
services, should already have connectivity, as broadband penetration is
somewhat complete.
Companies offering products/services may view that implementing IPv6 will
not bring them new business, but implementing it carries non-zero cost. And
providing access to consumers who are not potential customers increases
costs without increasing revenue.
The major losers in EU+US market seem to be start-ups, who can't get
addresses and thus have fraction of the market size giving existing
companies unfair competitive advantage, nearly impossible to overcome.
I would personally hope that EU+US would mandate that residential ISP add
IPv6 to their subscribers by default, without possibility to opt-out in
n years time. Hopefully n would be no more than 3.
APAC and Africa surely are completely different matter.
--
++ytti
