nrf wrote: > > 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?
That's a very good point. And it applies to the enterprise corporate side too. What financial benefits do they gain?? Priscilla > > 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=53772&t=53712 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
