Re: IPv6 Thought Experiment

["John Levine" <johnl () iecc com>]

In article <5DCAE7A8-1D33-4EA2-BBB1-7A3E8132D55B () gmail com> you write:
> What do you think would happen? Would it be the only way to reach 100% IPv6 deployment, or even that wouldn’t be 
> sufficient?

If you have to impose an artificial tax to force people to use IPv6,
you've clearly admitted that IPv6 is a failure and can't stand on its
own merits.  Should this happen, I'd expect massive use of CGN to hide
entire networks behind a single IPv4 address, and a mass exodus of
hosting business to other places which are not so stupid.  Mobile networks
would be less affected because many of them are IPv6 internally already.

> What I am trying to understand is whether deploying IPv6 is a pure financial problem.

To some degree, anything is a financial problem.  How about if I
charge you a hundred dollars for every packet you send using IP rather
than CLNS and CLNP and a thousand dollars for every virtual circuit
using TCP rather than X.25?