[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- Subject: IPv6 Confusion
- From: zaid at zaidali.com (Zaid Ali)
- Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 20:40:39 -0800 (PST)
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
>You are arguing that ISPs should make changes
>without any obvious mechanism to guarantee some return on the
>investment necessary to pay for those changes.
Nail on the head and the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Japan gave tax incentives which helped their ISP's to move to IPv6. Find a lazy lobbyist who can educate a senator to say that there will be no more tubes left on the internet and slide a tax incentive into the next stimulus package :)
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Conrad" <drc at virtualized.org>
To: "Mark Andrews" <Mark_Andrews at isc.org>
Cc: "NANOG list" <nanog at nanog.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 8:18:33 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: Re: IPv6 Confusion
On Feb 17, 2009, at 3:55 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> In otherwords ISP's need to enter the 21st century.
Yeah, those stupid, lazy, ISPs. I'm sure they're just sitting around
every day, kicking back, eating Bon Bons(tm), and thinking of all the
new and interesting ways they can burn the vast tracts of ill-gotten
profits they're obviously rolling in.
Reality check: change in large scale production networks is hard and
expensive. There needs to be a business case to justify making
substantive changes. You are arguing that ISPs should make changes
without any obvious mechanism to guarantee some return on the
investment necessary to pay for those changes. This is a waste of time.
In general, NAT is paid for by the end user, not the network
provider. Migrating to IPv6 on the other hand is paid for entirely by
the network provider. Guess which is easier to make a business case
Note that I'm not saying I like the current state of affairs, rather
I'm suggesting that jumping up and down demanding ISPs change because
you think they're stuck in the last century is unlikely to get you
very far. You want a concrete suggestion? Make configuring DDNS on
BIND _vastly_ simpler, scalable to tens or hundreds of thousands of
clients, and manageable by your average NOC staff.