[99644] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leigh Porter)
Mon Oct 1 09:49:35 2007
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 14:22:12 +0100
From: Leigh Porter <leigh.porter@ukbroadband.com>
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>, nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20071001124859.GB307@reiftel.karrenberg.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
So the governments should tax all new IPv4 only equipment and tax IPv4
Internet connectivity so that it does cost more to use v4 and then
people will start using v6.
Just as in the UK, increasing fuel tax makes more people use busses.
NOT
--
Leigh Porter
UK Broadband
Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
> On 27.09 23:51, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
>> ...
>> The simple truth is that IPv6 will be widely deployed as soon as it
>> reduces cost / increases income / enables features that can't be had
>> otherwise.
>>
>
> And that is that !
>
> Since there are no features that cannot be had with IPv4 this only
> happens when cost of deployment of IPv6 for a given network (part) is
> less than that of doing the same thing with IPv4. Since the only real
> feature of IPv6 is more addresses this only happens if it is too
> expensive to obtain the IPv4 address space that is required by the
> deployment. *)
>
> So far this has not happened often, but it already has happened in the
> judgement of some, like Comcast, and they deployed IPv6.
>
> It will happen more frequently and those who are not anticipating and
> planning ahead will pay the price for that. And they will complain that
> they have not been warned ..... But that is life.
>
> Daniel
>
> *) Note that features required by some deployments require more address
> space that can be easily obtained in IPv4. Currently these are rare but
> they exist.
>
