<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 2.0cm 70.85pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Nice to hear that you feel like that ;-).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>However I’ve often got another impression. But may be that is a subjective experience.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:lorenzo@google.com] <br><b>Sent:</b> Donnerstag, 12. Februar 2015 23:05<br><b>To:</b> Bonneß, Olaf<br><b>Cc:</b> Gert Doering; Ragnar Anfinsen; Steinar Gunderson; IPv6 Ops list<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 5:33 AM, <<a href="mailto:Olaf.Bonness@telekom.de" target="_blank">Olaf.Bonness@telekom.de</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I wonder if it would make a difference if big eyeballs ISPs ("among the<br>3 largest in a country") would start talking to content providers, telling them "hey, you know, your content is quite popular with our users, but since it's v4-only, we need to seriously throttle it to avoid overloading our CGN. v6 goes unlimited, btw."...<br><br>just dreaming...<br><br>[Obo]: Nice idea :). However content is king and your customer hotline will turn red because of people blaming you as ISP.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>That's not true. ISPs shake down content companies all the time - look at Comcast vs. Netflix, for example. I'm sure that as a large DT does its share of that kind of thing too :-)<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>