Mathis Jim-AJM005 <Jim(_dot_)Mathis(_at_)Motorola(_dot_)com> wrote:
We need to move forward with IPv6 both by deploying it in
the "core" and setting a time-frame after which non-IPv4
compatible addresses will be assigned. Unless there is a
clear reason to move, no one wants to change software just
to change. Once IPv6 is in the major backhaul carriers, ISPs
can role out improved services based on IPv6 which will be
the real reason end-users upgrade. Seems like a real
leadership vacuum here...
Hmmm ... seems like the same issues are in effect with regards to
deploying IPv6 in the "core", namely, no one wants to change software
just to change. There don't seem to be overly compelling reasons (yet)
for a significantly large number of end users to switch to IPv6
compliant technology, such that it would spur deployment of IPv6 in the
critical infrastructure they use. Rather, it has spurred deployment
of IPv4/NATv4.
Some of you know that I like to draw parallels between the Internet
and other media. One possible analogy (with US radio broadcasting) is
that IPv4 is to AM as IPv6 is to FM. Licensing of FM stations and the
eventual growth and development of that medium was accomplished through a
variety of means, such as limiting the number of new AM licenses granted,
and the development of programming on FM that became sufficiently compelling
that a marketplace grew for radios that could receive both AM and FM
broadcasts.
This suggests that a possible key to mass deployment of IPv6 could come
from stricter IPv4 address space allocation, but more likely from
development of content reachable *only* via IPv6 address space. This would
hopefully compel the folks who currently want to stick with IPv4/NATv4 to
make/market/purchase IPv6-compliant solutions in order not to be left
behind.
For the record, I don't necessarily think stricter IPv4 address space
allocation is a good idea. But using the US radio broadcasting analogy
again, a good deal of FM licenses were issued to people who wanted to be
broadcasters but had no choice but to go to FM because the FCC would not
issue them an AM license.
--gregbo