Nick Staff wrote: > > From: michael.dillon@xxxxxx [mailto:michael.dillon@xxxxxx] > > I still believe that the time is right for an IETF WG to define SOHO > > gateway requirements for IPv6 networks because IPv4 wind-down will > > cause > > more people to take a serious look at how and why to deploy IPv6. One > > single good idea in a SOHO gateway document could be enough to tip the > > scales and make a business case for IPv6 services. > > You might be surprised to find how many network and IT managers think we > already ran out of IPv4 addresses years ago, and how many more never > thought > about it at all. > > IT at most any non-technology company is still not seen as a revenue > generating division and I doubt very little short of losing internet > connectivity will be motivator enough to start thinking about the switch > to > IPv6. To me the problem with using "running out of IPv4 addresses" as a > motivator is that what does that really mean? Is the internet going to > stop > working? Would anyone notice if not for the media? Why should an > established company care if their upstart competitor now has to wait 3 > years > to get an internet presence? That is where your logic train breaks down. You assume that the established company would maintain the status-quo and the upstart would feel the pain. The reality is more likely to be that the service provider is sitting on the finite resource of a single address and will lease it to the highest bidder, and the upstart is probably losing money anyway so a little more won't matter. If the established company is sitting on a pile of PI space, they are insulated from the initial round of bidding, but as awareness of the resource shortage spreads there will be pressure from the short-term focused management to sell off that resource for immediate financial gain, only to force the organization into the bidding process down the road. Don't assume that the status-quo for routing and addressing policy is the one you will be living in once the IANA & RIR pools run dry. Tony > How is it going to break what people have > that's currently working - that's what most people don't know. And > being > the selfish species that we are, that's why most people don't care. > > I think the thing that would help IPv6 the most would be the setting of > a > hard date when no new IPv4 addresses would be issued. This would make > it > real for everyone and ignite the IPv6/IPv4 gateway market (I think). > Not to > mention we'd never have to have another debate over when IPv4 was going > to > run out which might be benefit enough in itself ;) > > nick > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf