This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig8EAFBC459ACBA8C166A754FD
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Bill Studenmund wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 03:26:19PM -0500, J. Scott Kasten wrote:
>>Myself, I love v6 and have been running it internally on everything for 
>>some time.  The one box that is spotty with it is an SGI Irix machine. 
>>At release 6.5.23, it still has some rough edges.
>>
>>On the other hand, I've worked for a few networking companies over the 
>>years, and it just is not on corporate radars yet.  No one want's to spend 
>>scarce development dollars to make networked products v6 
>>compatible/capable.  I've fought the good fight many times, but it's an 
>>uphill battle with a chicken and egg problem.  Executives won't fund v5 
>>until it's more pervasice in the market, but that won't happen unless.....
> Depends on where you are. If you're only selling in the US, then yeah.

Yup, the fact is the US still has a sizeable reserve of 
unused/unallocated IPv4 addresses. However, besides the address space 
exhaustion issue present in the rest of the world, IPv6 has other merits 
as well, which are a real tangible benefit to all of us (some related to 
the huge address space, like simple prefix routing because there's so 
many space). I think these merits are underlit currently.

> If you're selling overseas, then you can get more push for v6, especially
> in Japan. Among other things, I understand the regulatory environment
> there (and I don't mean ICANN) is much stricter for v4 than it is for v6; 
> there are business opportunities that will require v6 to happen.

Yes, for instance, mobile devices connected to the Internet. The number 
of mobiles in daily use is surely so large, IPv4 reserves can't cater 
for it. Then, there's the booming internet media distribution market, 
which requires media playback devices to have access. With that, there's 
numbers of those 'business opportunities' that will thrive only if the 
Internet can sustain the number of devices connected. It's easy to see 
the 32-bit IPv4 address space won't suffice. Now, there are technologies 
like NAT, but they're just a hack on a standard that didn't cater for 
it. An ugly hack at that. Now for all those cost-conscious 
'decision-makers' out there, I'd like to ask if it's worth throwing 
money at making applications work with NAT each and every time you 
invent them, now, and in the future, on a regular basis? Or throw money 
at a new standard once for a prolonged period? I think the choice is easy...

Cheers,
-- 
         Thomas E. Spanjaard
         tgen@netphreax.net

--------------enig8EAFBC459ACBA8C166A754FD
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFD+8d56xCMwBJ+1+sRA8MuAKCVVBaEv+bBdlUbNX9EPfQowZONxACfSnxe
nzRCUa5/kTCqVCqpimWltOY=
=EE2Y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig8EAFBC459ACBA8C166A754FD--