> Indeed, it has been remarkable how poor the sales pitch has been to resource-poor operations that are expected to adopt this, even after all this time.
>> On 10/11/2010 8:25 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Without getting into the question of whether your suggestion would have helped
anything in terms of transition and interoperability, it shares one major flaw
with the path we did adopt.>> There is no incentive to spend resources to get there.
<snip>
> Specifically there is a cycle of ungranted
requests. Alice has no incentive to upgrade her infrastructure because she
cannot use any new feature until Bob upgrades. Meanwhile Bob has no incentive to upgrade ahead of
Alice.
> Mere exhortations from the great and the
good have very limited effect.
The "elephant in the room" which this discussion hasn't
considered is "Why would a widget maker want to spend money, thereby
reducing their bottom line, to upgrade their network to IPv6? Applying
traditional business risk/reward analysis, is there even one real
*business advantage* to justify such an expense? If there isn't any, then
IPv6 would only rationally be deployed by such an end user if it were both
transparent and free.
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf