[ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal

[Luke S. Crawford]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

...[on marketing IPv4]...

> How do you market something that the need of which hasn't even been
> proven?

I think IPv6 has very real complexity advantages over 'nat hell' - 
complexity is expensive.    the problem is that these benefits are 
long-term, and you only get them if everyone else switches to IPv6.

> It is like trying to sell a bio-diesel car based on the idea that
> "one day the oil will run out and biodiesel will be the only thing
> you can use as a fuel"

Look at the uptake of virtualization.  As a "virtualization consultant" 
I've had several clients that continued to pay quite a lot to virtualize 
their environment after I (in the role of the "virtualization consultant" 
hired to be the technical help for the migration) informed them that they 
would gain little from the rather expensive cutover, and then be exposed 
to the risks of running 'public beta' quality software.

I see evidence the decision makers at most companies are unable to make 
independant decisions outside of the core company focus.  As far as I can 
tell from talking to them, they make strategic decisions by reading the 
industry press and watching for trends, rather than by understanding 
technology and using the best tool for the job.

now, the fact that they make more money than I do would indicate that 
watching trends is in fact a better way of making decisions than actually 
understanding the technology, but what do I know?  I'm just the lowly guy 
that gets paid to make it work.

My point is that the industry has been sold on products that have no 
immediate benefit before, and on products that have much less long-term 
value than IPv6.