future revenue at risk vs near term cost ratio
dougb at dougbarton.us
Mon Jun 20 07:00:23 UTC 2011
On 06/19/2011 23:38, Mike Leber wrote:
> On 6/19/11 10:47 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
>>> Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 22:32:59 -0700
>>> From: Doug Barton<dougb at dougbarton.us>
>>> ... the highly risk-averse folks who won't unconditionally enable IPv6
>>> on their web sites because it will cause problems for 1/2000 of their
>> let me just say that if i was making millions of dollars a day and i had
>> the choice of reducing that by 1/2000th or not i would not choose to
>> reduce it. as much as i love the free interchange of ideas i will point
>> out that commerce is what's paid the internet's bills all these years.
> Fortunately, 1/2000th was just the now proven false boogey man that
> people substituted as a placeholder for the unknown.
Actually the people using that number had hard facts to back it up, but
that was all debated at length already, and I don't see any point going
over it again.
> What if the risk of you not enabling it was that at some later date you
> lose 1/10th of your revenue due to either competitive pressures or the
> inability to provide the next generation service customers want? (Or if
> you are a non profit, what if it meant that you can't service 10 percent
> of your user base in the way they want.)
We've already been over this too:
A) Users don't want "IPvanything," they want "the Internet."
B) The date you propose is so far out in the future as to be not worth
discussing at this point.
My personal take on B is that long before we reach the tipping point you
propose that the switch will have been flipped. I think W6D was a good
step in the right direction, and I know that serious people are
crunching the numbers from it and are overwhelmingly likely to make the
right decisions going forward.
Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
-- OK Go
Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
More information about the NANOG