Re: [v6ops] Is there a problem? [was: Why enterprises aren't adopting IPv6]

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Hi Gert,
On 01-Oct-21 19:38, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 09:23:28PM +0000, Hamilton, Robert wrote:
>> I distinctly remember one of our network guys saying, "We'll never have wi-fi here. It's insecure, and...there's just no need for it."
>>
>> As soon as someone higher-up got a wi-fi device that they wanted to use at work, our whole campus got wi-fi. Imagine that.
>>
>> Customers with hand-held devices, phones, or whatever the future hand-helds are, will need to talk to someone with IPv6, because there will be too many devices for them all to have IPv4 addresses. I think if you want to have customers, you're going to have to have IPv6. If you don't want those customers, then it won't matter what protocol you won't be using any more.
> 
> The laziness of content providers (twitter, many news sites) to implement
> IPv6 has not led to "loss of customers".  Instead, it had led to "providers
> on the eyeball side need to ensure that IPv4-only content still works".
> 
> Incentives are wrong - content saving money leds to other people having
> higher costs, and no way to move the hurt where it needs to be.
> 
> (And yes, laziness.  It's not like people have plans "we do this next
> year", otherwise they would have done it 10 years ago "next year" - they
> just do not care)

Another way to describe it is what economists call "externalities", i.e.
costs that an enterprise creates for the community that it does not
pay for. The classical example is pollution - my fire pollutes your air,
and you pay the price while I use the heat.

The solution is "polluter pays", some way to force the cost of the
externality back onto the enterprise that creates it. How can we
force the costs back onto IPv4-only enterprises?

   Brian