[158214] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard Barnes)
Mon Nov 26 13:55:36 2012
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGQJ4mjy5U=TY1noorwHiUzh1f5JuumdhDq_p8eLCr700Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:54:48 -0500
From: Richard Barnes <richard.barnes@gmail.com>
To: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Dobbins, Roland <rdobbins@arbor.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Nov 26, 2012, at 10:36 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> >
> >> Ipv6 is not important for users, it is important for network operators
> who want to sustain their business.
> >
> > I agree with the first part; not sure I agree with the second part.
> >
> >> Nope. Nobody will leave money on the table by alienating users.
> >
> > I think it may be possible to make money with compelling IPv6-only
> content/services/applications.
> >
>
> I disagree, i simply see an additional fee for IPv4 coming about.
+1
And that in itself seems like it would make IPv6-reachable things a lot
more compelling.
