Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Nov 26, 2012, at 10:36 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
Ipv6 is not important for users, it is important for network operators who want to sustain their business.
I agree with the first part; not sure I agree with the second part.
Operators are all free to choose their own planning horizons. History is littered with the remnants of those with limited vision.
Nope. Nobody will leave money on the table by alienating users.
I think it may be possible to make money with compelling IPv6-only content/services/applications.
If you believe that is true you should do it and prove the point. Unfortunately most people that actually deploy and support applications can't make the math come out right when the access providers don't provide a path to 99% of the paying customers, then do just about everything they can to hobble bypass approaches.
Apple and msft os' s now make a clear judgement on that. So, you need to update your perspective.
I'm not very interested in their judgement. So, I'm quite happy with my perspective, thanks.
The overall system includes the perspective of app developers, not just BGP knob twisters, so the point of having a widespread api base is critical to making progress.
Does not matter. And it will not happen.
Proof by repeated assertion doesn't sway me.
It will happen, just not anytime soon. As the access networks get deployed, traffic will shift, so eventually the question about the expense of maintaining an ever more complex IPv4 version of the app to deal with multi-layer nat to support a dwindling user base will have to be answered.
The better question, for an isp, is what kind of ipv4 secondary market budget do you have? How hot is your cgn running? Like ALGs much ? Security and attribute much ?
These are important, yes.
Again , users dont care or know about v4 or v6. This is purely a network operator and app issue (cough cough ... skype).
It's my contention that IPv6 won't be widely deployed unless/until end- customers call up their ISPs demanding this 'IPv6 or whatever' thing they need to accomplish some goal they have.
And it is the contention of app developers that they can't make money on an app that that can't reach 99% of the intended user base. The entire point of tunnels is to break this absurd deadlock where access won't deploy without apps and apps won't deploy without access. Instead of getting on with it, there is an ongoing entrenchment and search for the utopian one-size-fits-all zero-cost transition plan. All this does is show how widespread the denial is, where people are refusing to let go of an entire career's worth of 'expertise' to keep up with the technology changes. Fortunately some have moved on, and are deploying despite the extra effort required in the short term. Once there are a substantial number of IPv6 access networks, the traffic volume will shift rapidly and people will start asking why the core is even aware of IPv4. At that point maintaining IPv4 will become the end user's problem, and they will have to find legacy tunnel providers if they want to keep that going. IPv4 won't die, it will just become an edge problem because the only reason to keep it running will be devices with embedded IPv4-only stacks which won't be replaced for 10 years. Tony