IPv6 Ignorance

[Philipp Kern]

On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 09:12:25AM -0600, Tim Densmore wrote:
> While I posted in that thread in favor of IPv6 Deployment, I have to
> admit that I'm somewhat sympathetic to their views.  Aside from
> being future-proof, what real purpose does being IPv6 "ready" do for
> a network/network operator?

Well, your customers can access sites that are only reachable via IPv6.
For me as a private person or SMB IPv6 is very much appealing because
more IPv4 addresses directly equate to cost. (Either getting into some
sort of business DSL scheme, or paying my hosting provider more so that
he assigns more addresses to my box.)

So my use of IPv6 directly equates with the hosting/DSL providers
getting less money because there's no longer an arbitrary shortage of
addresses[1]. Of course I then need to be able to reach my boxes/VMs
from the networks I'm on. Then, as a customer, I would take my money
elsewhere if I could[2] to get native IPv6 connectivity. Which then
equates with the DSL provider getting less money.

But I guess that line of argumentation (in absence of FreedomBoxes in
everyone's home) is reserved to the technically skilled end-users and
hence the drop in customers, given an IPv6-providing alternative,
would not be measureable currently.

Kind regards
Philipp Kern

[1] It is arbitrary that single servers get one address per box and
    private customers one address per DSL line. Of course, with the
    resource shortage we have now, it might have been wise, too.
[2] Which is basically impossible wrt DSL providers in Germany.