[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6

[Stephen Sprunk]

Joe Maimon wrote:
> michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
>   
>>> Actually it matters a lot.  There will be (are) many small businesses who will need IP addresses and depend on them for their business who will not be able to afford them.  This tips the balance heavily in the favor of the big players and against the small guy and against the consumer who will ultimately have to pay for it.
>>>       
>> In 1995 the big telecom companies were building out ATM networks
>> and the big PC magazines were touting ATM to the desktop,
>>     
>
> Who wanted ATM to the desktop?
>   

Lots of folks, apparently.  ATM-25 was quite popular in certain places 
until Fast Ethernet switches came out and absolutely demolished it on 
cost and easy of deployment/maintenance.  ATM switches weren't cheap, 
and LANE was a hideous mess in practice, but it was faster than 10Mb/s 
Ethernet...

>> and some kind of multichannel interactive cable-TV system called the information highway. In the meantime, the little guys were building services using an uncommon protocol called IPv4. Uncommon in the sense that there were few commercial offerings of IP and few books or courses teaching it.
>>
>> Why would the IPv6 transition be all that different? 
>>     
>
> Because nobody wants IPv6.

Few people wanted (or want) IPv4 either.  They want to be able to get 
interesting and/or profitable things done, and today that is not 
possible with only IPv6.  Perhaps it will be by the time IPv4 exhaustion 
happens, but I'm not that optimistic; there are still far, far too many 
pieces missing.

S
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3241 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090102/0a13987b/attachment.bin>