""Priscilla Oppenheimer"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > nrf wrote: > > > > More to the point, it's not really technical or political > > issues that are at > > play. It's financial issues. It's business. What exactly do > > the providers > > gain by migrating? What new revenue streams? Is there a > > business model in > > place to justify the expense of migrating and maintaining two > > protocols in > > the interim? What's the ROI? > > That's a very good point. And it applies to the enterprise corporate side > too. What financial benefits do they gain??
Exactly. How many enterprises really have so many devices that they are exhausting their RFC1918 address space? I would say about zero. You don't just install extra protocols in your enterprise just 'for fun', you do it because your enterprise actually needs it. And besides what exactly is the point of running ipv6 internally if your carrier is still running ipv4? Which brings us to the carriers. Ipv6 was meant for really large networks, like the large carriers. The problem is that really large networks are correspondingly important in that there is a substantial dollar value attached to any downtime of that network, which means that any change of that network entails more expense for proper testing and validation to make sure that a new feature implementation isn't buggy. But that raises the bar for a proper implementation of ipv6 even more - ipv6 only makes sense for the largest carriers (because they are the only networks that might require the expanded address space that ipv6 provides) , yet large carriers will have to find even more compelling revenue streams to justify the cost of testing/migration because uptime is so crucial. So you could say that the biggest problem of ipv6 is ...ipv6. Oh, and for all you ipv6 junkies, don't try to come back by saying that you can effect a simple migration just by expanding existing ipv4 addresses into ipv6 addresses. Why? Simple. The problem is that you're still effectively confined to a 32-bit address space which thereby removes the main impetus behind going to ipv6 in the first place. So if you're not going to reap the advantages, then why do it at all? In short, how do you justify to the bean-counters that such a migration makes sense? We're past the weird free-love, free-money dotcom profit-mirage days. 1999 is gone and it ain't coming back. Nowadays you don't just install technology just for the hell of it, and you certainly don't spend serious money doing so. That's not the way corporate finance works. Now you install technologies because there are clear revenue streams to be gained for doing so. Not hypothetical streams but actual proven streams. You have to demonstrate a quick payback period to whatever tech initiatives you are touting using financial figures that can be verified. Anything that smacks of castles-in-the-clouds is going to be dismissed as so much dotcom backwash. > > Priscilla > > > > > > For example, people talk about how wonderful ipv6 is for > > eliminating the > > need for NAT and how you can now give every device in the world > > its own > > unique address. But the crucial question is how exactly do the > > providers > > benefit financially from all this? Have customers demonstrated > > that they > > are willing to pay extra to their provider for the ability to > > get a unique > > global address for their refrigerator? What's the evidence? > > For a > > carrier, migrating to a new protocol takes months, even years > > of proper > > testing and validation, and that's a big expense. What's the > > evidence that > > there will be sufficient payback quickly enough to justify that > > expense? > > > > I say all this not to rain on the parade of ipv6, but rather to > > inject a > > tone of realism into the equation. As Tom Nolle once said, > > carriers do not > > make real expenditures based on hypothetical revenue streams. > > You don't > > just spend money on infrastructure based on the thin reed that > > you hope that > > customers will come. That's not the way carrier capex > > financing works these > > days. It's not 1999 anymore. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=53773&t=53712 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
