--On Saturday, June 11, 2011 01:34 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
...
You're correct that some ISPs will try to get monopoly rents
out of the IPv4 shortage, and use CGN to capture customers in
walled gardens, but fortunately capitalism provides a solution
to such misbehaviour: other ISPs can deploy IPv6 as a
competitive advantage.
Sure. Assuming that there is realistic competition, or a
realistic possibility of competition, in the relevant market.
Keith, Ned, and others have described a situation in which there
are few realistic choices of ISPs and the attitude of all of
them toward getting IPv6 deployed to endpoints runs from bad to
worse. In that marketplace situation, capitalism is as likely
to predict a "no one goes first" outcome as it is to predict
that one of the ISPs will suddenly decide that deploying IPv6
will give them a competitive advantage... and give that
competitive advantage even after the additional training costs
for their own staffs, support costs for customers, equipment and
software, etc., are considered.
That situation really isn't much different than it was several
years ago. If I'm in an area where competition is permitted,
I'm a large enough customer to be talking about dedicated fiber
to my premises in the multiple DS3 range or above, and I call up
my ISP (or my router vendors, or...) and say "sell me IPv6 or
I'm going to find it somewhere else", the threat is credible and
I'll probably set either them or their competitors scrambling.
If I'm in a situation that is closer to a SOHO one, in much of
the world there is no effective competition, I'm not seen as
having much leverage, and the scenario for my getting native
IPv6 is a lot more dependent on internal strategic decisions (or
wishful thinking) in those ISPs and not on competition issues
except very indirectly or at all.
john
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf