On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 12:42:23 -0400 "William Herrin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 10/2/07, Brian Raaen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Actually, a > > better way to push IPv6 is make users want it and feel like they are missing > > out if they don't have it. I campaign with some kind of slogan like 'got > > IPv6' or "I've got ultra high tech IPv6 for my internet and you don't" with > > a > > web url like www.getipv6.com (oops, some domain squatter already registered > > it). > > Brian, > > I offer you two words: Ford Edsel. > > It doesn't matter how clever you make the marketing campaign if on > finding out what the product actually is the customers decide they > don't want it. > > > > This all boils down to simple economics.... supply and demand. > > As far as I can tell, IPv6 is at least theoretically capable of > offering exactly two things that IPv4 does not offer and can't easily > be made to offer: > > 1. More addresses. > 2. Provider independent addresses > > At the customer level, #1 has been thoroughly mitigated by NAT, > eliminating demand. Indeed, the lack of IPv6 NAT creates a negative > demand: folks used to NAT don't want to give it up. > Those people don't know any better, because they probably haven't used a NAT free Internet. Most North Koreans probably aren't asking for democracy either. Have you used a NAT free Internet? So if more addresses was "thoroughly mitigated by NAT", when were these problems that NAT creates fixed? http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/what-nats-break.html > This community (network operators) has refused to permit #2, even to > the extent that its present in IPv4, eliminating that source of demand > as well. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > -- > William D. Herrin [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 3005 Crane Dr. Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> > Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 -- "Sheep are slow and tasty, and therefore must remain constantly alert." - Bruce Schneier, "Beyond Fear"
