The reality is that if ISPs are waiting for customers to ask for IPv6 then it's never going to get deployed. The majority of folks on the Internet don't care how they get to whatever they want, they just want to get their info, game, whatever. They are sold a service. They're not going to ask for their ISP to use OSPF either. They don't know or care. Most of us like highways too but we don't particularly care what specific compounds are used to make them. We only care that they don't have potholes and that we can get to where we want to. Maybe we care if they're plowed and that there's a high speed limit.<br>
<br>I guess I am still waiting for someone to come up with the killer application for IPv6. Or a marketing scheme... get this new service/speed/whatever if you sign up for IPv6. Of course you have to have IPv6 deployed to sell it as part of a service. <br>
<br>----Cathy<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Leo Bicknell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bicknell@ufp.org">bicknell@ufp.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">In a message written on Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 03:07:47PM -0500, John Schnizlein wrote:<br>
> On 2009Jan1, at 3:45 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:<br>
> >The status quo ends, however, when it does I have a markedly different<br>
> >view of the world than you do. I believe that:<br>
> ><br>
> > - IPv6 is deployed fairly rapidly, and with limited pain.<br>
><br>
> What would prompt this sort of radical change from the deplorably slow<br>
> deployment over the last several years?<br>
<br>
</div>Here's the interesting dynamic; there is almost no first-mover<br>
advantage to deploying IPv6 first. You want to deploy it before<br>
your customers want it, so you don't have to turn them away; and<br>
you want your engineers to have experience with it. However, beyond<br>
that it doesn't get you extra revenue, and may make you purchase<br>
equipment you would not otherwise purchase, run newer software with<br>
more bugs, etc.<br>
<br>
We see ISP's state this over and over, the customers do not want<br>
it, so we're not doing it.<br>
<br>
However, there is also no incentive to drag your feet once the move<br>
starts. The industry will move quikly to IPv6 once the move starts<br>
because running transition boxes (NAT, 6to4, whatever) is expensive,<br>
so most ISP's will want to be as dual-stack as possible and do as<br>
little transition as possible. ISP's will also move to push the<br>
transition costs to their competitors, last one with a transition<br>
box looses.<br>
<br>
What will start the move is customer demand, and it will be driven<br>
by the lack of IPv4 resources for large ISP's. Cox/Comcast/Time<br>
Warner/Verizon (FIOS/DSL)/Cablevision will run out. They will<br>
provision IPv6 (I believe). I think most will roll it out to their<br>
existing customers as well, in a dual-stack situation. Eyeballs<br>
will go first, and content having generally much fewer systems, a<br>
higher IQ per IP, and generally depending on protocols well tested<br>
over IPv6 will move second, and at an amazingly rapid pace. Akamai's<br>
and Limelight's I suspect could offer IPv6 services worldwide in a<br>
matter of a few weeks, if there was a reason to do so.<br>
<br>
In short, the least effort, least cost path is to delay as long as<br>
possible, then for everyone to leap forward at a brisk pace;<br>
essentially as fast as possible without paying money just to "speed<br>
it up."<br>
<br>
It is the service industry equivilent of the manufacturing industry's<br>
"just in time" delivery. You don't want inventory sitting in<br>
warehouses, which is what IPv6 configured on your network before people<br>
want it appears to be. However, if the part/service is late, it<br>
disrupts the entire line and causes a mess.<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
> something happens soon to change the current slow progress, I fear the<br>
> IPv4-translation approaches might become so well entrenched that they<br>
> become yet another obstacle to deployment of a network-layer Internet<br>
> protocol with sufficient addresses for the globe.<br>
<br>
</div>Translation may be a short term solution. However translation will<br>
always be more costly than native, and ISP's love to cut costs out<br>
of anything they can get their hands on. I have no fear of translation<br>
boxes becoming a long term solution.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
--<br>
Leo Bicknell - <a href="mailto:bicknell@ufp.org">bicknell@ufp.org</a> - CCIE 3440<br>
PGP keys at <a href="http://www.ufp.org/%7Ebicknell/" target="_blank">http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/</a><br>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
PPML<br>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
<a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br></blockquote></div><br>