At 10:46 PM +0000 9/20/02, Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote: >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 one, the economic benefit of being able to change ISPs without internal numbering, and the consequence that the ISPs lose the leverage of "locking in" customers to their address space. Remember that in V6 addressing, only the low-order part of the address needs to be enterprise-specific. New revenue streams MAY be possible with some of the organizations that already have adopted V6, such as 3rd generation wireless, HDTV, and next-generation air traffic control. > > >> >> 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. Speaking as someone who was there when the decisions on V6 were made, and continuing to be active in NAT work, this "wonderful" idea is, in the view of the IETF, urban legend. There was NEVER an attempt to justify V6 because it could give a static address to everything in the world. The long address is there because it allows provider addressing information to be decoupled from enterprise addressing information. I realize that there are large organizations, such as the PRC government, that look at V6 as something that can give them unique static addresses (and it could), but that's NOT the way it was designed to be used. Aside from the addressing aspects, there are also functional changes in the protocol. Yes, pretty much all can be done with IPv4 extensions, but not as cleanly or as efficiently. >But the crucial question is how exactly do the >> providers > > benefit financially from all this? If nothing else, it gives providers the ability to get into new accounts that previously were barred to them by the customer's unwillingness to renumber out of provider-assigned addres space. >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? That scenario is somewhat unrealistic anyway. Any "smart house" proposal I have seen assumes the cable set-top box, etc., is a router with one external address. The appliances, etc., could have link-local addresses on the LAN, and the only address that appears in the global routing system is the (aggregated) subnet of the router. Don't forget that there has long been a clash between using IPv4 addresses as endpoint identifiers as well as routing locators. DNS(v6) is intended to handle some of these complexities. If anything, the IPv6 address splits into a locator and identifier part, although that's something of an oversimplification giving enterprise dynamic (AppleTalk/OSI style) and DHCPv6 addressing. > > 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=53799&t=53712 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
