<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div dir="ltr"></div><div dir="ltr">[I’m gonna change subject to this sub thread since it makes sense… as opposed to the other 15 subject line changes this thread has seen so far]</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><blockquote type="cite">First, there is very little cost to any large tech company to state a date that they expect to turn off IPv4 for certain services. "To get our free xyz service after January 1, 2028, you'll need to be on a provider that supports IPv6". The tech companies can then push out that deadline if they don't see enough adoption as the deadline approaches.</blockquote><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">You’re suggesting they should bluff, essentially - this is great!</div><br><blockquote type="cite"> There are, of course, risks related to consumers switching to other alternatives prior to the date and also various other reputation and legal risks. </blockquote><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Exactly, which is why this won’t happen until the $$ saving due to abandoning v4 outweighs the risks above.</div><br><blockquote type="cite">I guess if one was to abstract the above out at a very high level it would be to say that about the easiest way that I can see to further accelerate IPv6 adoption is to either start to provide certain desirable services only over IPv6 or at least threaten to do so.</blockquote><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Did you consider a legislative / government level incentive? The EU just forced all mobile devices sold in the area to have an USB-C port, why not enforcing a requirement for IPv6 on all broadband and mobile connections?</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Or at least a mechanism to clearly identify dual stack broadband offerings vs v4 only?</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">US is also mandating a v6 support requirement for gov-contracts - why not extending?</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Ultimately - the commercial world can create incentives, but lawmakers can enforce.</div><br><blockquote type="cite">The Googles of the world just happen to be in the best position to do just that and may have a financial motivation to do so (if they can do so without negatively impacting their bottom line).</blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="auto"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Jan 13, 2024, 12:42 AM Giorgio Bonfiglio <<a href="mailto:me@grg.pw">me@grg.pw</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div dir="ltr"></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto">2) Assume that Google decided that they would no longer support IPv4 for any of their services at a specific date a couple of years in the future. […] I really expect something like this to be the next part of the end game for IPv4.</div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
</blockquote></div></div></div>
</div></blockquote><br><div>It’s never gonna happen … why would Google, or any other internet property, launch something which artificially cuts the potential revenue pool to IPv6-ready customers?</div><div><br></div><div>I’m with you it would be amazing and a strong driver, but it’s just not in the realm of possibility…</div></div></blockquote></div></div>
</div></blockquote></body></html>