nanog mailing list archives
Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)
From: Phil Regnauld <regnauld () catpipe net>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 15:55:02 +0200
Leigh Porter (leigh.porter) writes:
So the governments should tax all new IPv4 only equipment and tax IPv4 Internet connectivity so that it does cost more to use v4 and then people will start using v6.
I don't think you need government taxing for that. I think that the IPv4 trading market we're about to see appear will resolve that issue very quickly. Either you can afford it, or you can't.
Current thread:
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Daniel Karrenberg (Oct 01)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) JAKO Andras (Oct 01)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Leigh Porter (Oct 01)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Phil Regnauld (Oct 01)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) John Curran (Oct 01)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) David Conrad (Oct 02)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) John Curran (Oct 02)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) David Conrad (Oct 02)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) John Curran (Oct 02)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) David Conrad (Oct 02)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) John Curran (Oct 02)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Adrian Chadd (Oct 02)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) David Conrad (Oct 02)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Ted Hardie (Oct 02)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Phil Regnauld (Oct 01)