On Oct 21, 2010, at 11:53 AM, Joe Maimon wrote: > > > Dan White wrote: > >>> Or are the two simply not inter-communicable? >> >> I think that's the $64K question. Do you wait to roll out v6 until you >> start seeing v6-only hosts start popping up? > > When do you think that will happen and in what percentages of your target > populations to matter? > Shortly after runout and that depends on the nature of the growth in your userbase.
>> From an accounting and cost >> recovery stand point, that probably makes sense in some environments. >> >> However, consider the fact that there will be v6 only hosts popping up >> after IANA/RIR/ISP exhaustion. > > There is a phase you are missing between depletion and v6 only hosts. > Not really. > That would be continual and increasing difficulties of obtaining new v4 > access and degradation of the quality of that service, hopefully along with a > direct inverse effect on the quality and resultant value of v6 service. > That phase will be short-lived and steep. > The time line and gradations of that phase are far less clear than depletion. > Less clear, yes. Far less? I'm not so sure about that. > That would explain why so many do not concern themselves with it at this > time. Especially those who do not consider themselves to be the party > initially responsible for resolving those issues. > I think a more accurate explanation would be a behavior common to Ostriches when experiencing fear. Tony Hain has a pretty good slide on the stages of IPv6 grief. It seems many engineers and organizations are somehow still in denial and few have moved to rationalization or acceptance. > http://www.dilbert.com/fast/2006-07-30/ > Cute, but, remember, Mr. Adams used to be a Pacific Bell employee. Not exactly the shining example of a forward thinking or innovative company. So much not so that they ended up being acquired by SBC which later bought and renamed itself AT&T. Owen
