> On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Dave CROCKER > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> On 10/11/2010 8:25 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: Without getting into the question of whether your suggestion would have helped anything in terms of transition and interoperability, it shares one major flaw with the path we did adopt. >> There is no incentive to spend resources to get there. > Indeed, it has been remarkable how poor the sales pitch has been to > resource-poor operations that are expected to adopt this, even after all > this time. <snip> > Specifically there is a cycle of ungranted requests. Alice has no incentive > to upgrade her infrastructure because she cannot use any new feature until > Bob upgrades. Meanwhile Bob has no incentive to upgrade ahead of Alice. > Mere exhortations from the great and the good have very limited effect. The "elephant in the room" which this discussion hasn't considered is "Why would a widget maker want to spend money, thereby reducing their bottom line, to upgrade their network to IPv6? Applying traditional business risk/reward analysis, is there even one real *business advantage* to justify such an expense? If there isn't any, then IPv6 would only rationally be deployed by such an end user if it were both transparent and free.
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
