I couple of years ago, I did a study of what services a cell phone service
provider could deploy on IPv6 that couldn't be deployed on IPv4. I was
trying to get a good business case for persuading Docomo to do an early
deployment of IPv6. The answer, to my suprise, was: nothing.
I also don't buy the argument: "When the RIRs stop giving out IPv4 addresses
in 2 years, then everybody will *finally* start to deploy IPv6". What will
happen is that someone will set up a Web site where globally routable IPv4
addresses are auctioned. The price of a globally routable IPv4 address will
go from zero to market driven. In other words, a market will develop in
globally routable IPv4 addresses. If and when the incremental cost of
deploying an IPv6 address exceeds the market price of a globally routable
IPv4 address by a sufficient amount (maybe 5x, maybe 10x, whatever amount
matches the disutility to the service provider of having to deploy IPv6),
then IPv6 may get deployed.
For IPv6 to be widely deployed based on market forces, the economic
advantage to the service provider must be sufficiently attractive to
overcome the large sunk cost of the current IPv4 network. IPv6 deployment is
a good example of how large sunk costs in infrastructure essentially
throttle the deployment of a new technology, so that it becomes cheaper to
continue developing the old technology. Another example (actually far more
important to the future of the planet in general) is petroleum powered
transport which is one reason why hybrid drivetrains are having and will
continue to have more success than hydrogen.
Nonmarket forces, such as government mandates, are a different matter. They
could possibly force deployment (and similarly and more importantly for
nonpetrolum powered transport).
jak
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Touch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pars Mutaf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Templin, Fred L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Internet Area"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Why the IETF is still working on providing
newfeaturesto IPv4 ?
Pars Mutaf wrote:
With all due respect, I'm questioning this result ;-)
The client/server paradigm which, at least to me, does not really
require IPv6.
The charts are intended to show the uptake of IPv6 commercially. Web
servers seem a reasonable way to measure that, at least initially.
In my opinion the real dooms day metric is "how far we are from
the IP addressable cell phone", which is probably not measurable :-/
Nor would an ATM addressable cellphone be, unless they talk to something
else using IPv6. Using IPv6 internally is irrelevant.
I would be surprised if IPv6 made it into cellphones and major companies
failed to upgrade their web servers to be surf-able from those phones.
Joe
On Dec 12, 2007 5:24 PM, Joe Touch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Here's a good overall datapoint:
http://utility.nokia.net/~lars/meter/ipv6.html
Lars and I talked originally about a 'doomsday clock'-like metric, that
shows IPv6 uptake via tracking Fortune-500 and similar commercial sites.
This is the current result... not very encouraging, IMO.
Joe
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 12 dec 2007, at 16:46, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
I wanted to say that while I'm happy to see more and more IPv6
addresses allocated and - right this evening - my home being invaded
by 2^64 addresses by my provider, I also think many if not all new
paradigm applications aren't IPv6 but IPv4: facebook, itunes, gps,
skype, fon, second life, you name it.
Small datapoint: iTunes supports IPv6 on both Mac and Windows and has
for a number of years. I don't believe any Apple hosted stuff, such as
the iTunes Store, is available over IPv6, though.
Iljitsch
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
