Creating demand for IPv6, and saving the planet

A number of people have bemoaned the lack of any IPv6-only 
killer-content that would drive a demand for IPv6. I've
thought about 
this, and about the government's push to make IPv6 a
reality. What 
occurred to me is there is a satellite sitting in storage
that would 
provide such content:

   http://en.wikipe
dia.org/wiki/Triana_(satellite)

Al Gore pushed for this satellite, Triana, to provide those
on earth 
with a view of the planet among its scientific goals. The
Republicans 
referred to it as an "overpriced screen saver,"
though the effect 
even of just the camera component on people's lives and how
they 
treat the planet could be considerable.

By combining the launch of Triana with feeding the still
images and 
video from servers only connected to native IPv6 bandwidth,
the 
government would provide both a strong incentive for end
users to 
want to move to IPv6, and a way to get the people of this
planet to 
stop from time to time and ponder the future of the earth.

Of course getting this done any time soon would require
getting the 
present administration to reverse its bias against Triana
and global 
warming. But it seemed to me an interesting way to advance
two goals 
in synergy.

Dan
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Daniel Senie                                        dtssenie.com
Amaranth Networks Inc.                    http://www.amaranth.com

    "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent
     about things that matter." -- Martin Luther King,
Jr.

* Daniel Senie:

> By combining the launch of Triana with feeding the
still images and
> video from servers only connected to native IPv6
bandwidth, the
> government would provide both a strong incentive for
end users to want
> to move to IPv6, and a way to get the people of this
planet to stop
> from time to time and ponder the future of the earth.

How do you stop people from creating IPv4 gateways to the
service?
>From this perspective, copyrighted porn is much better.

While that may work (I am not going to get into the
politics), I think the 
other poster has a good point that people would create
gateways.  Actually, a 
better way to push IPv6 is make users want it and feel like
they are missing 
out if they don't have it.  I campaign with some kind of
slogan like 'got 
IPv6' or "I've got ultra high tech IPv6 for my internet
and you don't" with a 
web url like www.getipv6.com (oops, some domain squatter
already registered 
it).  

	For the most part the ISP and provider community is not
going to put 
resources into IPv6 unless there is a market demand for
IPv6.  By making end 
users feel like they are missing out on something or not as
'cool' since they 
don't have it, you will create a market demand.  The whole
model of making 
something appealing or making someone feel left out without
something is a 
science that has been exploited by marketing groups for
years.  If an ISP 
loses customers because it doesn't have 'cool' IPv6 and
another does you can 
probably bet your money that they will be launching a 'new'
'cool' IPv6 
product.

	This all boils down to simple economics.... supply and
demand.  When the 
market has a strong demand for something the technical
challenges tend to get 
mastered faster than when there is not a market demand.  As
far as creating a 
demand for something technical that people don't understand,
I think that is 
is very possible just look at some of the crazy fads
(remember the neon 
lights under cars) that people buy.

-- 
Brian Raaen
Network Engineer
braaenzcorum.com
Tel 678-507-5000x5574

On Monday 01 October 2007 11:53, Daniel Senie wrote:
> 
> A number of people have bemoaned the lack of any
IPv6-only 
> killer-content that would drive a demand for IPv6. I've
thought about 
> this, and about the government's push to make IPv6 a
reality. What 
> occurred to me is there is a satellite sitting in
storage that would 
> provide such content:
> 
>    http://en.wikipe
dia.org/wiki/Triana_(satellite)

> like 'got IPv6' or "I've got ultra high tech IPv6
for my 
> internet and you don't" with a web url like
www.getipv6.com 
> (oops, some domain squatter already registered it).  

http://www.getipv6.info
could put that on the main page if enough people
demand it.

> 	For the most part the ISP and provider community is
not 
> going to put resources into IPv6 unless there is a
market 
> demand for IPv6.

And unless there are IPv6-knowledgeable people to hire, or
already on
staff.

Someday IPv6 will be a routine part of training and
education programs
like CCIE. But right now it would be nice if more people
would submit
info for the
http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/Educating_Yours
elf_about_IPv6 page.
Right now it points to several ways of building a home IPv6
lab network
using virtual machines, a couple of papers/presentations,
one free book
and some other miscellanous bits.

Any other ISP-oriented material on IPv6 and its deployment
would be
welcome.

--Michael Dillon

> What I hope for in the near future is a consortium of 
> small-to-very-small providers together in one place
hashing 
> out IPv6 addressing plans that make sense and are
scalable 
> for our far-less-than academic size networks, right
down to 
> even just a simple flat network.

Yes, and I was hoping that ARIN's wiki pages here 
http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/IPv6_Addressing_Plans
might be the venue for that discussion since a wiki is
better for
developing a collaborative document than a mailing list.

> Also, it does not help that I am the only person in our

> organization that knows anything about IPv6, hence I
have 
> nobody internally I can actually throw ideas at.

I think that this is part of the reason why ARIN started the
GetIPv6
wiki site.

--Michael Dillon

On 10/2/07, Brian Raaen <braaenzcorum.com> wrote:
> Actually, a
> better way to push IPv6 is make users want it and feel
like they are missing
> out if they don't have it.  I campaign with some kind
of slogan like 'got
> IPv6' or "I've got ultra high tech IPv6 for my
internet and you don't" with a
> web url like www.getipv6.com (oops, some domain
squatter already registered
> it).

Brian,

I offer you two words: Ford Edsel.

It doesn't matter how clever you make the marketing campaign
if on
finding out what the product actually is the customers
decide they
don't want it.


>         This all boils down to simple economics....
supply and demand.

As far as I can tell, IPv6 is at least theoretically capable
of
offering exactly two things that IPv4 does not offer and
can't easily
be made to offer:

1. More addresses.
2. Provider independent addresses

At the customer level, #1 has been thoroughly mitigated by
NAT,
eliminating demand. Indeed, the lack of IPv6 NAT creates a
negative
demand: folks used to NAT don't want to give it up.

This community (network operators) has refused to permit #2,
even to
the extent that its present in IPv4, eliminating that source
of demand
as well.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin                  herrindirtside.com  billherrin.us
3005 Crane Dr.                        Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>

Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

Thus spake "William Herrin" <herrin-nanogdirtside.com>
> As far as I can tell, IPv6 is at least theoretically
capable of
> offering exactly two things that IPv4 does not offer
and can't easily
> be made to offer:
>
> 1. More addresses.
> 2. Provider independent addresses
>
> At the customer level, #1 has been thoroughly mitigated
by NAT,
> eliminating demand. Indeed, the lack of IPv6 NAT
creates a
> negative demand: folks used to NAT don't want to give
it up.
>
> This community (network operators) has refused to
permit #2,
> even to the extent that its present in IPv4,
eliminating that source
> of demand as well.

If you feel ARIN has not solved the PIv6 issue sufficiently
well, please 
take that argument to PPML.  As of today, if you qualify for
PIv4 space, you 
qualify for PIv6 space automatically -- and you only have to
pay the fees 
for one of them.

If you're claiming that you have a PIv6 block and ISPs won't
route it, 
please publicly shame the offending parties here so the rest
of us will know 
not to give them our money.

S

Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice." 
--Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and
He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity."
--Stephen Hawking 

On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, William Herrin wrote:

>
> On 10/2/07, Brian Raaen <braaenzcorum.com> wrote:
>> Actually, a
>> better way to push IPv6 is make users want it and
feel like they are missing
>> out if they don't have it.  I campaign with some
kind of slogan like 'got
>> IPv6' or "I've got ultra high tech IPv6 for my
internet and you don't" with a
>> web url like www.getipv6.com (oops, some domain
squatter already registered
>> it).
>
> Brian,
>
> I offer you two words: Ford Edsel.
>
> It doesn't matter how clever you make the marketing
campaign if on
> finding out what the product actually is the customers
decide they
> don't want it.
>
>
>>         This all boils down to simple economics....
supply and demand.
>
> As far as I can tell, IPv6 is at least theoretically
capable of
> offering exactly two things that IPv4 does not offer
and can't easily
> be made to offer:
>
> 1. More addresses.
> 2. Provider independent addresses

not to state the obvious but:

3. reachability instead of a world of black holes
    and walled gardens.

maybe I'm just a flat-earther...

http://hsci.cas.ou.edu/
images/jpg-100dpi-10in//19thCentury/Flammarion/1888/Flammari
on.jpg

- Lucy

> At the customer level, #1 has been thoroughly mitigated
by NAT,
> eliminating demand. Indeed, the lack of IPv6 NAT
creates a negative
> demand: folks used to NAT don't want to give it up.
>
> This community (network operators) has refused to
permit #2, even to
> the extent that its present in IPv4, eliminating that
source of demand
> as well.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
>

At 12:42 PM -0400 10/2/07, William Herrin wrote:
>
>As far as I can tell, IPv6 is at least theoretically
capable of
>offering exactly two things that IPv4 does not offer and
can't easily
>be made to offer:
>
>1. More addresses.
>2. Provider independent addresses
>
>At the customer level, #1 has been thoroughly mitigated
by NAT,
>eliminating demand. Indeed, the lack of IPv6 NAT creates
a negative
>demand: folks used to NAT don't want to give it up.

#1 has been partially mitigated by NAT, and perhaps only
temporarily.

The last chapter of that book is yet to be written.

/John

Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> 
> Thus spake "William Herrin"
<herrin-nanogdirtside.com>
>> As far as I can tell, IPv6 is at least
theoretically capable of
>> offering exactly two things that IPv4 does not
offer and can't easily
>> be made to offer:
>>
>> 1. More addresses.
>> 2. Provider independent addresses
>>
>> At the customer level, #1 has been thoroughly
mitigated by NAT,
>> eliminating demand. Indeed, the lack of IPv6 NAT
creates a
>> negative demand: folks used to NAT don't want to
give it up.
>>
>> This community (network operators) has refused to
permit #2,
>> even to the extent that its present in IPv4,
eliminating that source
>> of demand as well.
> 
> If you feel ARIN has not solved the PIv6 issue
sufficiently well, please 
> take that argument to PPML.  As of today, if you
qualify for PIv4 space, 
> you qualify for PIv6 space automatically -- and you
only have to pay the 
> fees for one of them.
> 

Really? As far as I understood it, I still had to pay $500
for end-user 
allocations.

~Seth