Re: [arin-ppml] NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for an IPv6naysayer...)

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Feb 18, 2011, at 11:07 AM, Scott Helms wrote:

> On 2/18/2011 1:53 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
> > http://www.jetcafe.org/~npc/isp/large.html
> >
> > If you take the 5 top US ISPs and get them to do dual stack IPv6, that's 50 million subscribers in the US only.
> >
> > I think google and others will notice some serious traffic happening.
> We're years from the point where any one of them will have more than a tiny fraction of their traffic as IPv6 and 
> that's assuming that all we have to deal with are the known problems.
If by years, you mean 18 months and by tiny fraction you mean more than 10%, then, sure, you are correct.

> > It took a market share of 10 to 20% of Mozilla for web developers to go back to support ALL browsers. Same for 
> > mobile web site a 10% surfing rate got many companies to develop web sites for mobiles.
>
> Not really comparable because in both of those cases users were making a choice, because they perceived some benefit, 
> and hence there was demand to adapt to those new platforms.  There is almost 0 demand for IPv6 from consumers and 
> what is there is from the technologists.  We don't have a situation where the existing infrastructure doesn't work, 
> it does.
I'm betting that after IPv4 runout, users will continue to perceive a benefit in making the choice to connect to the
internet even though they cannot get a unique IPv4 address.

> > If I recall Comcast and Time Warner are participating in IPv6 day. This should create enough eyeballs to show on web 
> > analytics graph and provide the shift that makes nat444 irrelevant.
>
> I wish, but IPv6 day will be much more of a media event than anything else.  Keep in mind that none of these things 
> are what I wish only what I believe to be accurate.
The problem with this type of belief is that it serves to incite others to inaction, leading it to become a 
self-fulfilling
prophecy.

Owen