<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><br></font><br>IF they even know the difference between IPv4 and IPv6. They are thinking in<br>terms of, "how can I delay our investment in this IPv6 thing as long as<br>possible because it's cash out the door for which I can't see an incremental<br>benefit in revenue?" The only thing that is combating *that* delay tactic is<br>technical people like me spreading FUD by citing potential lost revenue for<br>customers who leave us because we can't offer IPv6, and inability to service<br>existing customers when we run out of IPv4 addresses.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Small nit here... FUD stands for Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt and is usually used</div><div>in the context of creating false fears, unwarranted uncertainty, and unreasonable</div><div>doubt, such as the fear tactics commonly used by politicians.</div><div><br></div><div>All of the things you just mentioned about IPv6 are 100% real and will happen.</div><div>I can't say for sure whether it's going to happen in 2 years, 3 years, or 5 years,</div><div>or somewhere in between, but, within 5 years, it will happen.</div><div><br></div><div>An organization that large CANNOT reinvent their network in 2 years, and, 3 years</div><div>is pretty aggressive. As such, given the current status, I'd say it's very important</div><div>to start working on IPv6 NOW to avoid those consequences in that time frame</div><div>because waiting another quarter is placing you at risk of being an additional</div><div>quarter behind when it does hit.</div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><br></font></div><div>[WDJ] Assuming you're right and the CTO of the organization is a moron and<br>doesn't know IPv4 is coming and hasn't filled the rest of the C-level people<br>in on the potential benefit of being an OA (Original Allocator) the point is<br>still moot. When IANA hands out the last /8s, it's going to be worldwide<br>news and they're going to catch on really quickly. Furthermore, it's not<br>really about number of subscribers, it's about number of dollars in the bank<br>account. I reckon they don't care how many customers (within reason) it<br>takes to make the maximum return on investment. Making customers happy and<br>giving them services they need is only as important as the profit is high. <br><br></div></blockquote>That's a really cynical approach to business. It may be popular in todays</div><div>10-Q driven world, but, I don't work for an organization that views its</div><div>customers with such contempt, and, I can't imagine it would be very pleasant</div><div>to do so. (Although my friends who work at M$ say it is).</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><br>And let's be realistic here, the reason that those companies have large IP<br>allocations is that they have been doing something that qualifies as a<br>justified use of addresses under ARIN policy, and their business model<br>expects them to continue growing if they are successful. They have IPv6<br>plans because they're going to be in bad shape *when* they run out of IPv4.<br>It's not in their economic best interest to drag their feet on IPv4 if it<br>means that IPv6 is harder for them to use because it isn't widely deployed,<br>and therefore they are interfering with their primary business because their<br>users aren't happy or they can't sell to any new ones. No amount of driving<br>up the theoretical value of IPv4 assets will compensate for no longer having<br>a customer base.<br><br></div></blockquote>That's a much smarter view of the world.</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>[WDJ] Sometimes you don't have to expand to make more money. Sometimes you<br>just raise the price.<br><br></div></blockquote>Given the amount of low-priced IPv6 available and the number of content providers</div><div>who now have public IPv6 deployment plans as well as the number that have</div><div>existing IPv6 service availability, I think that's going to be a hard sell in the competitive</div><div>market that will exist at the time.</div><div><br></div><div>Owen</div><div><br></div></body></html>