On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Dave CROCKER
<dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net<mailto:dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>> 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
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf