On 06/19/2011 23:38, Mike Leber wrote:
On 6/19/11 10:47 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 22:32:59 -0700
From: Doug Barton<do...@dougbarton.us>
... the highly risk-averse folks who won't unconditionally enable IPv6
on their web sites because it will cause problems for 1/2000 of their
customers.
let me just say that if i was making millions of dollars a day and i had
the choice of reducing that by 1/2000th or not i would not choose to
reduce it. as much as i love the free interchange of ideas i will point
out that commerce is what's paid the internet's bills all these years.
Fortunately, 1/2000th was just the now proven false boogey man that
people substituted as a placeholder for the unknown.
Actually the people using that number had hard facts to back it up, but
that was all debated at length already, and I don't see any point going
over it again.
What if the risk of you not enabling it was that at some later date you
lose 1/10th of your revenue due to either competitive pressures or the
inability to provide the next generation service customers want? (Or if
you are a non profit, what if it meant that you can't service 10 percent
of your user base in the way they want.)
We've already been over this too:
A) Users don't want "IPvanything," they want "the Internet."
B) The date you propose is so far out in the future as to be not worth
discussing at this point.
My personal take on B is that long before we reach the tipping point you
propose that the switch will have been flipped. I think W6D was a good
step in the right direction, and I know that serious people are
crunching the numbers from it and are overwhelmingly likely to make the
right decisions going forward.
hth,
Doug
--
Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
-- OK Go
Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
