Corporations are paperclip maximizers, not charities. Nothing will ever convince one to drop 0.1% of its users "for the good of the Internet". It may happen for different reasons: to avoid an extra cost, to avoid a regulatory burden, to screw over a certain other company (such as an ISP who doesn't provide v6 to users).
On 20 June 2025 10:57:07 am GMT+02:00, Robert Kisteleki via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote: >> I think what we need is for some big tech companies to sign a contract >> with each other that they start dropping IPv4 at their network edge in >> 2035 or so. This would then signal the market that you're going to >> need to deploy IPv6 and that you can do IPv6 only, because IPv4 only >> networks will have to figure out translation in their edges. And I >> think they should be motivated to do this, to get rid of the >> requirement of purchasing IPv4 addresses. However they probably will >> always be able to sink that cost in their products, and the real >> companies suffering from access to IPv4 spaces are competitors who >> never start. So it might be a good anti-competitive strategy to keep >> the IPv4 dream alive. > > > I'm reasonably sure that those big tech companies are (closely) tracking >their numbers, and know pretty accurately how much traffic (direct >correlation: revenue) they would lose if they switched to v6 only. Ideally >with projections on how much that loss may be in 2030, 2035, ... (with lots >of assumptions, sure). > >What would possibly make them decide to drop 5% or 1% or 0.5% or even 0.1% >of their potential customers (and revenue) at that time "for the good of >the internet"? > >Robert >_______________________________________________ >NANOG mailing list >https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/KY3QHZYJJ3EUB7GPU6SYT2MVXPBGYAOV/ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/3UDYJK5P6ER6T55LYBHU25YIODT3L2VS/
