From: Lucy Lynch (no email)
Date: Tue Oct 02 2007 - 13:53:57 EDT
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, William Herrin wrote:
>
> On 10/2/07, Brian Raaen <> 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
not to state the obvious but:
3. reachability instead of a world of black holes
and walled gardens.
maybe I'm just a flat-earther...
http://hsci.cas.ou.edu/images/jpg-100dpi-10in//19thCentury/Flammarion/1888/Flammarion.jpg
- Lucy
> 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.
>
> 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
>
>
>
|
|
|
