> On Mar 24, 2022, at 04:43 , Mark Delany <k...@november.emu.st> wrote:
>
> On 24Mar22, Vasilenko Eduard allegedly wrote:
>> Hence, the primary blocking entity for IPv6 adoption is Google: they do not
>> support DHCPv6 for the most popular OS.
>
> No. The primary "blocking entity" is that "legacy" ipv4 works just fine and
> adopting ipv6
> or ipv4++ or ipv6-lite or ipv-magical is harder than doing nothing.
>
> That Google/Android don't like DHCPv6 is largely irrelevant.
>
> My five year old ISP router only supports ipv4. Yet I get to every site on
> the planet just
> fine. Give me one good reason to spend my hard earned pay on an expensive new
> router which
> supports ipv6?
>
> You have two choices: make my ipv4 router fail or make the new ipv6 router
> compelling.
>
> How do you propose to do either of those?
>
>
> Mark.
There’s a third option… When your ISP starts charging $X/Month for legacy
protocol support,
your IPv4-only router will become more expensive to run than migrating to
something that
is dual-stack.
Home users aren’t the long tail here. Enterprise is the long tail here. Android
phones are,
indeed, part of the enterprise problem, but not the biggest part.
If this were a purely technical problem, we’d have been done more than a decade
ago. The
problem is a lack of corporate “round tuits” which for each enterprise are in
limited supply and
usually go to things that either reduce costs or increase revenue.
IPv6 can do both in some circumstances, but not in a way that conveniently fits
into a cost
accounting model and the people with the knowledge to express it generally
aren’t
well versed in cost accounting anyway.
So… here we are.
Owen
