Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google]

["Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow () mci com>]

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
> Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 17:41:51 -0400
> > John Payne <john () sackheads org> wrote:
> > > On Sep 12, 2005, at 6:58 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> > > > > I'll be blunt.  As long as that question is up in the air, none of
> > > > > the major content providers are going to do anything serious in the
> > > > > IPv6 arena.
> > > > Well, I have no evidence of them doing anything with IPv6 anyway, so I
> > > > don't know if this makes a difference.
> > > I have a very strong feeling that part of the lack of content providers
> > > on IPv6 is due to the lack of multihoming.
> >
> > No, I would say it is due to the lack of an audience that can _only_  be reached
> > (or even _best_ be reached) using IPv6.
> >
> > Once the audience is there, the content providers will follow.
> Same issue really.  Audience isn't going to mature until those issues
> are sorted.

so.... 'chicken and egg' problem, which was why a month ago I said: "why
don't some content providers put up some form of their content on a
sidelined v6 path?" Perhaps a 'testing' path or a 'not wholey production'
path?

Some of the answers were enligtening (to me atleast)...

anyway, this has been some good discussion, and 2 more people are now on
shim6 :)