On Thu, 2004-11-18 at 10:29 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 09:18:22 EST, Christian Kuhtz said: > > > So, again, somebody says they're selling it.. And without wanting to sound > > like a flame.. what volume of native, non-tunnel IPv6 traffic do you see and > > what applications is it? Could you throw those of us a bone who are still > > scratching our heads as to what business cases support this? ;) > > The point is that Randy was wrong when he said there weren't any v6 ISPs > in 2002, because at least some were doing it a year before that. > > For *THAT* matter, I've heard a lot of people over on the main IETF list > in the last week or so stating that SMTP is only 1-2% of many places' total > bandwidth usage. So why don't we all just cut *THAT* off because there's > no business case to support *THAT* either? :)
The business case of about 80% of the ISP's is Pr0n & W4R3z (or what spelling is 'in' this year?) But.... it is not illegal to make adverts for say "Downloading the newest movies over a cool 8mbit DSL line". But downloading it itself is of course. Might be analogous to providing a busservice to the crack dealers mansion. In short.... when those porn providers join the boat with the warez providers IPv6 will have a lot more traffic for sure. Operational part: most (all?) of the IETF servers don't support IPv6, guess where they are located ;) Greets, Jeroen
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
