On Feb 18, 2011, at 11:07 AM, Scott Helms wrote: > On 2/18/2011 1:53 PM, Franck Martin wrote: >> http://www.jetcafe.org/~npc/isp/large.html >> >> If you take the 5 top US ISPs and get them to do dual stack IPv6, that's 50 >> million subscribers in the US only. >> >> I think google and others will notice some serious traffic happening. > We're years from the point where any one of them will have more than a tiny > fraction of their traffic as IPv6 and that's assuming that all we have to > deal with are the known problems. > If by years, you mean 18 months and by tiny fraction you mean more than 10%, then, sure, you are correct.
>> It took a market share of 10 to 20% of Mozilla for web developers to go back >> to support ALL browsers. Same for mobile web site a 10% surfing rate got >> many companies to develop web sites for mobiles. > > Not really comparable because in both of those cases users were making a > choice, because they perceived some benefit, and hence there was demand to > adapt to those new platforms. There is almost 0 demand for IPv6 from > consumers and what is there is from the technologists. We don't have a > situation where the existing infrastructure doesn't work, it does. > I'm betting that after IPv4 runout, users will continue to perceive a benefit in making the choice to connect to the internet even though they cannot get a unique IPv4 address. >> If I recall Comcast and Time Warner are participating in IPv6 day. This >> should create enough eyeballs to show on web analytics graph and provide the >> shift that makes nat444 irrelevant. > > I wish, but IPv6 day will be much more of a media event than anything else. > Keep in mind that none of these things are what I wish only what I believe to > be accurate. > The problem with this type of belief is that it serves to incite others to inaction, leading it to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Owen
