On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Nathan Ward wrote:

Unfortunately, the mentioned content is plentiful enough (both large numbers of discrete items, and replicated large numbers of times) in other places that people seeking it out are unlikely to jump through hoops in order to access this particular instance of it.

I'm not sure this is the case. Many people seem to find it hard enough to get the content now that they are prepared to pay significant amounts of money to obtain it. Also while complaining to their ISP that a certain site doesn't work is harder when it hosts that sort of content, it doesn't stop some people. It's been done before with BitTorrent: "In the summer of 2002, Cohen collected free p..nography to lure beta testers to use the program" (wikipedia:Bram_Cohen) [my dots] -- Simon J. Lyall | Very Busy | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz/ "To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT.

The only redeeming feature of the proposal is establishing that people are prepared to pay USD$29 per month (instead of USD$30) for access to IPv6. "tens of thousands of people are paying $30/month to access these videos" At least then we have quantified what the market is prepared to pay. Prior to that, it's a lot of heat and light and noise. So, lets assume the average residential consumer of this content can spell IPv6. And they ask for it. And let's assume they're prepared to pay $50 NZD for "broadband" IPv4 connection. And they ring up and ask for the V6 thing. And you tell them it's ~$40 NZD extra (conversion rates kids), plus they may need to spend money V6'ing themselves. If mass market forked out nearly twice what they're paying now, I think NZ would be V6 enabled by the end of the year. But sadly I suspect that neither of the above is likely to be true. jamie On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 13:15 +1200, Simon Lyall wrote:

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Nathan Ward wrote:

...

Unfortunately, the mentioned content is plentiful enough (both large numbers of discrete items, and replicated large numbers of times) in other places that people seeking it out are unlikely to jump through hoops in order to access this particular instance of it.

I'm not sure this is the case. Many people seem to find it hard enough to get the content now that they are prepared to pay significant amounts of money to obtain it.

Also while complaining to their ISP that a certain site doesn't work is harder when it hosts that sort of content, it doesn't stop some people.

It's been done before with BitTorrent:

"In the summer of 2002, Cohen collected free p..nography to lure beta testers to use the program" (wikipedia:Bram_Cohen) [my dots]

Now that makes me wonder if the IPv6 adoption reluctance isn't due to poor naming... IPvSex should boost the deployment, no? -- Juha Saarinen www.geekzone.co.nz/juha | Skype: juha_saarinen blogs.pcworld.co.nz/pcworld/techsploder www.computerworld.co.nz | MSN: juha_saarinen(a)msn.com Voice: +64 9 950 3023 Subtle recursive jokes in .sigs are not funny.

On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 15:55 +1200, Juha Saarinen wrote:

Now that makes me wonder if the IPv6 adoption reluctance isn't due to poor naming... IPvSex should boost the deployment, no?

I'd just like to state for the record my utter digust at this 'concept'. Anyone who honestly thinks this is a good idea should be ashamed of themselves. Another Internet full of exploitation and violence against women for the pleasure of a few sick men is the last thing we need. IMO, this thread should be closed now. And maybe some people on this list need to re-examine just what sort of people they are. -- David Zanetti Systems Administrator, FX Networks L3, 138 The Terrace, Wellington, New Zealand +64-4-498-9643 +64-21-402260

I second that. At least some of us, who are still morally upright intividuals, have a SOH (sense of humor)

I take offense at this post.

I don't like the implication that because I didn't instantly take offense at the idea that I am somehow morally corrupt.

To be completely honest, I think IPv6 is a really good idea... SNIP.

...

I'd just like to state for the record my utter digust at this 'concept'. Anyone who honestly thinks this is a good idea should be ashamed of themselves. Another Internet full of exploitation and violence against women for the pleasure of a few sick men is the last thing we need.

IMO, this thread should be closed now.

And maybe some people on this list need to re-examine just what sort of people they are.

On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 17:00 +1200, Lin Nah wrote:

Following up to various points a. Neil Gardner's dialogue I think the conversation will be

Ring Ring...

ISP helpdesker- "Hello, helpdesk speaking" User - "Hi, I really really need IPv6, can I get it please?" ISP helpdesker- "What is IPv6?" User - Check out this webpage ...

:)

b. Content

On the matter of content, what if some other organisations (i.e., Apple or Microsoft) were to make just a portion of their music catalogues freely available over IPv6? (With rate limiting and so on in place of course.) Ignoring for a moment the licensing issues and the recording companies not liking it, this could be huge incentive. MacOS X and Vista have IPv6 support built in today, complete with tunnelling technologies, it wouldn't be that hard to do. And we we've already seen that Apple has the muscles to take care of the recording companies...

There's a few press articles about how the Beijing 2008 Olympics will be streamed using IPv6. I can't find anything at the moment that says it is going to be exclusively used, apart from one mention in Wikipedia "all Beijing Olympics 2008 communications will be IPv6" based" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6

It wouldn't surprise me if they used IPv6 only internally, made it available externally and have IPv4 proxies in place for the rest of the Internet. It would be insanity to not have IPv4 support.

So perhaps 1. the streams will be made available to public 2. Spectators online will try to use it to watch sports events that aren't served by their local TV stations.

Vista will use Teredo to automatically build a tunnel if there is no native IPv6 connection and an installed software package asks for IPv6 connectivity. So they could do "download this movie viewer to watch the Olympics" and the movie viewer requests IPv6. <shrug>

3. This may create a demand for IPv6?

If they take the side step approach above, then yeah, but the punters won't know they're using it.

While it is perhaps small beginnings and perhaps not as popular as streaming the sort of content mentioned in the experiment, it may be a start to generating demand?

Different target demographics. :) There are also a couple of completely open Usenet servers for IPv6 users to access, different demographics again. Unfortunately it appears that Usenet hasn't been enough incentive to get on IPv6! Cheers! -- Andrew Ruthven Wellington, New Zealand At home: andrew(a)etc.gen.nz | This space intentionally | left blank.

On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 10:10 +1200, Nathan Ward wrote:

On 11/04/2007, at 9:10 AM, Andrew Ruthven wrote:

...

On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 17:00 +1200, Lin Nah wrote:

...

b. Content

On the matter of content, what if some other organisations (i.e., Apple or Microsoft) were to make just a portion of their music catalogues freely available over IPv6? (With rate limiting and so on in place of course.)

Wait, what? Why would they put their $ in to that project? What do they gain?

Because they want people to start using the new technology in their operating systems? It makes life easier from their support point of views if they can get remote access to peoples machines? Microsoft can see other benefits as well: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsvista/aa905083.aspx

In order to bring this in to the realms of beer and operational issues (in order of preference) I'd like to call attention to: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt-to- historic-00.txt and ask if any of you have given thought to what happens when you can't get any v4 addresses for your subscribers anymore.

This is of course where the nay-sayers say that the rate of IPv4 exhaustion is a joke. I'm not one of those, and I've already started experimenting with IPv6. (And for the record, I started experimenting *long* before that experiment website was created!) Also, the IPv4 Internet certainly isn't going away anytime soon, and there are protocol level proxies that work okay for going between IPv6 and IPv4.

When thinking about this, keep in mind that until there's a critical mass of IPv6 eyeballs, most content providers are unlikely to spend $ to move.

There are content providers out there that are starting to deploy IPv6, their concern at the moment is the potential for slow performance and bad end-user experience due to all the crappy tunnels stitching the IPv6 Internet together. The people that replied to those concerns all said that they've had very little negative feedback. Cheers! -- Andrew Ruthven Wellington, New Zealand At home: andrew(a)etc.gen.nz | This space intentionally | left blank.

On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 13:41 +1200, Nathan Ward wrote:

On 11/04/2007, at 11:56 AM, Andrew Ruthven wrote:

...

Also, the IPv4 Internet certainly isn't going away anytime soon, and there are protocol level proxies that work okay for going between IPv6 and IPv4.

What do you mean by "protocol level"? HTTP proxies and such, or things like NAT-PT?

Yes, I mean HTTP proxies and others of that ilk. Yes, they suck, but NAT-PT appears to suck more. Cheers! -- Andrew Ruthven Wellington, New Zealand At home: andrew(a)etc.gen.nz | This space intentionally | left blank.

On 10 Apr 2007, at 22:10, Andrew Ruthven wrote:

On the matter of content, what if some other organisations (i.e., Apple or Microsoft) were to make just a portion of their music catalogues freely available over IPv6? (With rate limiting and so on in place of course.)

It isn't in Apple's interest to do that, why should they care whether v6 is driven or not ? Similarly for other companies, why should they care ? ip is a means to an end, I don't craft packets for fun, I do work or have fun, and ip occurs as a way to send my messages from A to B.