[members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion

On 25/07/2012 04:05, Rob Golding wrote:
> End users don’t know what it is, don’t appear to want it, from take up
> certainly don’t seem to need it, and basically don’t care about it -
> they just want their pr0n to turn up quickly.

Certainly desktop users are most interested in just doing whatever they
want to do and don't care too much about the underlying protocols.

But I'm getting the impression that you're mixing up what an End User means
here.  If you're the sort of end-user who requires provider independent
addressing, you're probably a small-medium sized content provider, or
perhaps a very large large commercial customer.  For customers of this
form, €50 / annum is an insignificant financial outlay.

If you're the sort of end user who just wants to browse stuff on your
desktop, ipv6 PI is completely irrelevant to you.  Your service provider
can assign you some PA space and you'll probably never even notice.

Look, you clearly feel very strongly that the equivalent cost of 10 minutes
of engineering time is an insurmountable obstacle for the sort of
organisation which is going to need IPv6 PI address space, even though an
IPv6 rollout may take anything from weeks to years to implement fully, with
proportional total costs of ownership.  So let's agree to disagree on this
point.

>> local asn do need to understand ASN32 
>> natively, but this support has been
>> available on all cisco ios based platforms 
>> since 2009 and all juniper
>> platforms since 2008.  
>> If you're running software this old on your
>> transit
>> routers, you have bigger problems.
> 
> You missed the point where I explained that we did all this 10 years ago !

Nope, didn't miss it.  I've no doubt that you had servers dual-stacked 10
years ago.  I've even less doubt that ipv6 was nowhere near ready for
large-scale deployment 10 years ago.  Dual-stacking some servers is easy.
Rolling v6 services out to eyeballs, not so much.

> 89% of the worlds desktops are running an OS which does things wrong
> with IPv6 DNS results

You may be confusing ipv6 with asn32s here?  I was talking about asn32s.

> when it gets a v6 result from DNS lookups and doesn’t have any v6
> routes, so putting a site/service/system on ipv6 only cuts your
> potential audience by 9/10ths

I suspect your understanding of global ipv6 deployment problems may be
substantially different to mine.

Let's just agree that this isn't really relevant to members-discuss@ and go
back to discussing the charging scheme.

Nick