[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal

[Leo Bicknell]

In a message written on Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 11:41:20AM -0800, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> I'd love it.  The problem is you got all these CPE makers out
> there like Broadexnt, Westell, Efficient Networks, ActionTec, and
[snip]
> 
> Those customers all paid their ounce of flesh 3-4 years ago for
> those devices, and those CPE makers made their profits, disbursed
> their bonuses and such to their employees, and their dividends to
> their shareholders, and ended those product lines, or came out
> with new models.
> 
> Your now asking them to go back into in some case 8 year old microcode
> and rewrite it.  How exactly do they make a profit doing this?

Nope.  Those boxes will be replaced.  Not because of IPv6.  Cable
companies are already replacing DOCSIS 1.0 devices in some areas
with 2.0 devices for reasons that have nothing to do with IPv6.
Some of these same drivers will require DOCSYS 3.0 devices in the
very near future.

That's the problem with IPv6 in a vacuum.  Yes, replacing a cable
modem just to get IPv6 is costly.  But they are also replacing them
to get more bandwidth, to get better control over the bandwidth
that is there, to get better management from the device.

> The end users, naturally, aren't going to want to spend the money
> for new devices if their old ones are still working.

If you told most end users they could get 8Mbps down for the same
price as 6Mbps down; but they have to pay $50 one time for the modem
they would jump at it.  Given DOCSYS 3.0's better use of cable
spectrum they cable companies well be able to do just that.  IPv6
would come along for free.

It seems to me a lot of people like to forget that the IPv6 transition
is already underway.  Cable companies put IPv6 in DOCSYS 3.0.  Cisco
and Juniper have their plans.  Forward thinking companies with
higher margins (like Apple) already have it in their devices.

And you know what, some things will never be upgraded.  My old HP
printer at home, which will likely never speak IPv6.  I only care
if I can reach it from the local subnet, it will not hold back IPv6
deployment in any way shape or form.  It may hold back getting rid
of dual stack, but that's an argument for 5-10 years from now.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20080214/2b4532f2/attachment.sig>