In article <5dcae7a8-1d33-4ea2-bbb1-7a3e8132d...@gmail.com> you write: >What do you think would happen? Would it be the only way to reach 100% IPv6 >deployment, or even that wouldn’t be sufficient?
If you have to impose an artificial tax to force people to use IPv6, you've clearly admitted that IPv6 is a failure and can't stand on its own merits. Should this happen, I'd expect massive use of CGN to hide entire networks behind a single IPv4 address, and a mass exodus of hosting business to other places which are not so stupid. Mobile networks would be less affected because many of them are IPv6 internally already. >What I am trying to understand is whether deploying IPv6 is a pure financial >problem. To some degree, anything is a financial problem. How about if I charge you a hundred dollars for every packet you send using IP rather than CLNS and CLNP and a thousand dollars for every virtual circuit using TCP rather than X.25?
