More to the point, it's not really technical or political issues that are at play. It's financial issues. It's business. What exactly do the providers gain by migrating? What new revenue streams? Is there a business model in place to justify the expense of migrating and maintaining two protocols in the interim? What's the ROI?
For example, people talk about how wonderful ipv6 is for eliminating the need for NAT and how you can now give every device in the world its own unique address. But the crucial question is how exactly do the providers benefit financially from all this? Have customers demonstrated that they are willing to pay extra to their provider for the ability to get a unique global address for their refrigerator? What's the evidence? For a carrier, migrating to a new protocol takes months, even years of proper testing and validation, and that's a big expense. What's the evidence that there will be sufficient payback quickly enough to justify that expense? I say all this not to rain on the parade of ipv6, but rather to inject a tone of realism into the equation. As Tom Nolle once said, carriers do not make real expenditures based on hypothetical revenue streams. You don't just spend money on infrastructure based on the thin reed that you hope that customers will come. That's not the way carrier capex financing works these days. It's not 1999 anymore. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=53759&t=53712 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
