Re: [arin-ppml] NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...)

[Jeff Wheeler <jsw () inconcepts biz>]

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Zed Usser <zzuser () yahoo com> wrote:
>  Reduce, yes. Remove, no. Without a global cutoff date for the IPv6 transition, it's not like IPv4 is going to 
> disappear overnight. Furthermore, without any IPv4/IPv6 translation, the first IPv6 only networks are going to be 
> awfully lonely.

I suspect Google, Microsoft, and others have already figured out a
beneficial (to everyone) way to monetize this.  If I'm an ISP with
working IPv6, and my competitor in a given region is an ISP without
IPv6, I'd like to advertise to all the end-users of that ISP whenever
they go to a search engine that sells ads.

Since these search engine companies have figured out white-listing
users into "good IPv6," it's no great leap to suggest that they'll
eventually black-list IPv4 users into "bad," and tie that into their
advertising system for ISPs to purchase nicely-targeted banners/links.

If my ISP is reading this, please tell both your residential and
business technical and sales departments to come up with a better
answer than "we are not going to support IPv6 because that's only for
ISPs that run out of IPv4."  Otherwise, I'd bet Google will be more
than willing to let your competitors give customers a different answer
in the near future!

-- 
Jeff S Wheeler <jsw () inconcepts biz>
Sr Network Operator  /  Innovative Network Concepts