Richard Shockey wrote: > > ... > >Yes deployment will be gated by economic factors. The problem the IETF > and > >the transit network operator community keep overlooking is that the > economic > >costs are not down in the plumbing. The costs are in application > development > >and end system/lan administration. > > This is an excellent point that focuses on the real issue of economics. If > these inhibitors can be more specifically quantified I'd feel a lot more > hopeful that one could create a pricing model that drives demand. Therein lays the problem. Quantifying something that is widely distributed in small pockets is very difficult. At one point a few years ago I was aware of 5 different teams working on nat traversal mechanisms for their specific application. This was all within one company. Not only were they unaware of each other, they were so focused on solving their specific task that they couldn't consider trying to generalize to consolidate their efforts. > > So you would say the transit operators will not SELL the product since the > customer ( end user and or enterprise) cannot support it or they cannot > afford the upgrades to existing edge infrastructure (Cisco, Juniper, > usual > suspects, MS etal ) necessary to support the transition? The point is they can't sell you new plumbing unless you know the existing pipes are not doing the job. Even then people only buy the plumbing to accomplish the end use application. The plumbing is not a goal in itself, and therefore doesn't really qualify as a marketable product. > > Part of the problem of course is the false perception .. perpuated by > countless commentators that NAT's are a better security measure than > firewalls. One goal of the NAP document is to point out that a nat may be simpler than traditional corporate firewalls, but it is not 'better security'. > > I still think V4 to V6 pricing for numbering will and should play a role. > Numbers have no value. I understand service providers get away with charging for numbers in IPv4, but that is an artificial market created by the real scarcity. > > >Once the application development > >community recognizes that it is cheaper for them to build over IPv6 than > to > >retain small armies to develop nat workaround hacks or deal with the > >additional support costs from that complexity, and that through tunneling > >they don't have to wait for lethargic operators to move first, there will > be > >plenty of economic motivation for deployment. > > Well the good news is that SIP principally among other new and emerging > realtime applications driven by explosive residential broadband deployment > is forcing the issue. > The potential exists, but quantifying the development and complexity of operation costs that are spread around the edge is still a challenge. > > > >The frog is in the pot and the water temperature is rising. Given the > >general state of denial it is likely that the water will boil before the > >dead frog wakes up to notice. > > Well if the frog is V4 let it cook ... Well in this case the IETF is the one in the hot water. Tony _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf