On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 05:12:15PM +0200, Sean Doran wrote:
> 
> | The point Feico was making is that many ISPs are not going to want to
> | make these kind of sacrifices when they could push for IPv6 support.
> 
> IPv6 demands other sacrifices, and the cost-benefit analysis is
> anisotropic.  That is to say, not everyone agrees with you.

I never claimed everyone would agree with me. I only claimed that for
the success of IPv6 it may very well be quite irrelevant, as for
newcomers the cost-benefit will be quite different than for long-term
established networks and for some newcomers (like high-speed wireless)
IPv4 is just not an option. I just find it very silly to proclaim the death
of IPv6, just because some (or many) fear a painful/costly transition
and therefor or not looking forward to migrating and have a
conservative attitude (as was stated in the article that started this
whole thread). 

I agree with you that for existing networks migrating to IPv6 will be 
costly and maybe not interesting for a long time. But then again, if 
that price needs to be paid in the end anyway it will probably be wise 
to start as early as possible to spread the pain over time... Also, 
providing both IPv4 and IPv6 service over a relatively long transition 
period where reliance is gradually shifted from IPv4 to IPv6 isn't all 
*that* painful.

Feico.