future revenue at risk vs near term cost ratio

Tim Chown tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk
Mon Jun 20 03:55:00 CDT 2011


On 20 Jun 2011, at 08:00, Doug Barton wrote:

> 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
>>>> customers.
>>> 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.

Except that if there's new evidence showing the figure is lower, let's see it :)

The measurements we have made show 0.07% over the past month or so, the figure being users who can access a site with an A record, but not one with an A and AAAA record.  There are still corner case issues out there, but I suspect that that small percentage may well be down to users who don't update their OS or software.  It would be very interesting to know the real causes.  I would hope things like 3484-bis and happy eyeballs will help reduce these further.

Tim



More information about the NANOG mailing list