North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Creating demand for IPv6

  • From: William Herrin
  • Date: Tue Oct 02 12:59:16 2007
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; bh=sCW6sms3LVnIjMhc00NnOloAXUQ502yrm2MF8S/M59g=; b=IqmRGeN7qZnvGUUYH4jEeBRLaYGbhmqZ+R2hSRcoR0ODfwv2YDR3/31dwtvK/1h55yn14khL99JCBAHihpR2w9JFTXuxpx7LJf+6zs6VMjjJD9nfRqTWjLRYKobCSZvpRDJC+LqqaaeYBfha6yujXOf8k+YICnfI/zl+hZbG2WM=
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=q3s8uDinvIWyJo4WtH6Hzx/QjoF+9qMGh2BrCi3SOSsGLY0ATPXRFRBWkazN4dDBky9q0ZR1IKjdaH0/Hirj6If1MlPV6yk8JV+TczHD7L4vr5rh47f6emnamFBJVecuUMX0tQgxru9CrR4GAI6QXfFpuOD2BMt0AVSCvfuaQbc=

On 10/2/07, Brian Raaen <[email protected]> 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 (oops, some domain squatter already registered
> it).


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

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.

Bill Herrin

William D. Herrin                  [email protected]  [email protected]
3005 Crane Dr.                        Web: <>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004