On Nov 26, 2012, at 8:33 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > Why is that a significant question?
It is significant because it provides some rough measure of the relative *importance* of IPv6 connectivity to the users and to the content/app/services networks. We are not yet at the point where ordinary people need end-to-end IPv6 connectivity across the public Internet in order to do their jobs. We are not even at the point where ordinary people need end-to-end IPv6 connectivity across the public Internet for recreational purposes. Providing IPv6 capabilities for popular content/apps/services like Google, Netflix, and Facebook is one thing. Creating compelling content/apps/services which are *only* accessible via IPv6 is another. I believe gaming developers are probably in the best position to provide such a stimulus, should they determine that it makes economic sense for them to do so. > If they have IPv6, they will access a significant amount of content via IPv6. The definition of 'have IPv6' is somewhat nebulous, at present - that's part of the problem. > I don't get why people are arguing that we shouldn't do IPv6 because IPv6 is > so little of total traffic. I'm not making that argument. > There is so little traffic because ISPs do not turn on IPv6. The content is > there now. As Randy noted, some big destination networks have in fact enabled IPv6 connectivity to their properties. A lot haven't, however, and user application capabilities/behaviors also come into play. Again, where're the compelling IPv6-only content/apps/services? ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins <rdobb...@arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com> Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton
