nanog mailing list archives
Re: One Can't Have It Both Ways Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: EzIP Re: IPv4 address block
From: "Forrest Christian (List Account)" <lists () packetflux com>
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2024 03:06:00 -0800
My position is a bit more subtle than I stated. I tend to forget I can and should be more nuanced on this particular list. First, there is very little cost to any large tech company to state a date that they expect to turn off IPv4 for certain services. "To get our free xyz service after January 1, 2028, you'll need to be on a provider that supports IPv6". The tech companies can then push out that deadline if they don't see enough adoption as the deadline approaches. There are, of course, risks related to consumers switching to other alternatives prior to the date and also various other reputation and legal risks. But I suspect that can be managed in a way that minimizes the risks. But the point here is that the setting of a possible IPv4 shutoff date is likely to accelerate IPv6 adoption even if they never actually shut off IPv4. I guess if one was to abstract the above out at a very high level it would be to say that about the easiest way that I can see to further accelerate IPv6 adoption is to either start to provide certain desirable services only over IPv6 or at least threaten to do so. The Googles of the world just happen to be in the best position to do just that and may have a financial motivation to do so (if they can do so without negatively impacting their bottom line). On Sat, Jan 13, 2024, 12:42 AM Giorgio Bonfiglio <me () grg pw> wrote:
2) Assume that Google decided that they would no longer support IPv4 for any of their services at a specific date a couple of years in the future. […] I really expect something like this to be the next part of the end game for IPv4.It’s never gonna happen … why would Google, or any other internet property, launch something which artificially cuts the potential revenue pool to IPv6-ready customers? I’m with you it would be amazing and a strong driver, but it’s just not in the realm of possibility…
Current thread:
- Re: 202401101433.AYC Re: EzIP Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block, (continued)
- Re: 202401101433.AYC Re: EzIP Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Forrest Christian (List Account) (Jan 10)
- Streamline the CG-NAT Re: 202401101433.AYC Re: EzIP Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Abraham Y. Chen (Jan 11)
- Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: 202401101433.AYC Re: EzIP Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Christopher Hawker (Jan 11)
- Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: 202401101433.AYC Re: EzIP Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Abraham Y. Chen (Jan 12)
- Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: 202401101433.AYC Re: EzIP Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Christopher Hawker (Jan 12)
- Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: 202401101433.AYC Re: EzIP Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Abraham Y. Chen (Jan 13)
- Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: 202401101433.AYC Re: EzIP Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Forrest Christian (List Account) (Jan 11)
- One Can't Have It Both Ways Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: EzIP Re: IPv4 address block Abraham Y. Chen (Jan 12)
- Re: One Can't Have It Both Ways Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: EzIP Re: IPv4 address block Forrest Christian (List Account) (Jan 13)
- Re: One Can't Have It Both Ways Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: EzIP Re: IPv4 address block Giorgio Bonfiglio via NANOG (Jan 13)
- Re: One Can't Have It Both Ways Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: EzIP Re: IPv4 address block Forrest Christian (List Account) (Jan 13)
- Re: IPv6 Adoption Incentives Giorgio Bonfiglio via NANOG (Jan 13)
- Re: IPv6 Adoption Incentives Dave Taht (Jan 13)
- Re: One Can't Have It Both Ways Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: EzIP Re: IPv4 address block Brandon Butterworth (Jan 13)
- Re: One Can't Have It Both Ways Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: EzIP Re: IPv4 address block Brett O'Hara (Jan 13)
- Re: One Can't Have It Both Ways Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: EzIP Re: IPv4 address block Forrest Christian (List Account) (Jan 13)
- Re: One Can't Have It Both Ways Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: EzIP Re: IPv4 address block Abraham Y. Chen (Jan 15)
- Re: One Can't Have It Both Ways Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: EzIP Re: IPv4 address block Christopher Hawker (Jan 15)
- Re: One Can't Have It Both Ways Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: EzIP Re: IPv4 address block Forrest Christian (List Account) (Jan 15)
- Re: One Can't Have It Both Ways Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: EzIP Re: IPv4 address block Abraham Y. Chen (Jan 18)
- Re: One Can't Have It Both Ways Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: EzIP Re: IPv4 address block Owen DeLong via NANOG (Jan 19)