On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 12:42:23 -0400 "William Herrin" <herrin-nanog@dirtside.com> wrote:
On 10/2/07, Brian Raaen <braaen@zcorum.com> wrote:
Actually, a better way to push IPv6 is make users want it and feel like they are missing out if they don't have it. I campaign with some kind of slogan like 'got IPv6' or "I've got ultra high tech IPv6 for my internet and you don't" with a web url like www.getipv6.com (oops, some domain squatter already registered it).
Brian,
I offer you two words: Ford Edsel.
It doesn't matter how clever you make the marketing campaign if on finding out what the product actually is the customers decide they don't want it.
This all boils down to simple economics.... supply and demand.
As far as I can tell, IPv6 is at least theoretically capable of offering exactly two things that IPv4 does not offer and can't easily be made to offer:
1. More addresses. 2. Provider independent addresses
At the customer level, #1 has been thoroughly mitigated by NAT, eliminating demand. Indeed, the lack of IPv6 NAT creates a negative demand: folks used to NAT don't want to give it up.
Those people don't know any better, because they probably haven't used a NAT free Internet. Most North Koreans probably aren't asking for democracy either. Have you used a NAT free Internet? So if more addresses was "thoroughly mitigated by NAT", when were these problems that NAT creates fixed? http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/what-nats-break.html
This community (network operators) has refused to permit #2, even to the extent that its present in IPv4, eliminating that source of demand as well.
Regards, Bill Herrin
-- William D. Herrin herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
-- "Sheep are slow and tasty, and therefore must remain constantly alert." - Bruce Schneier, "Beyond Fear"