[162650] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 and HTTPS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jimmy Hess)
Sun Apr 28 19:32:34 2013
In-Reply-To: <m2d2teb7el.wl%randy@psg.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 18:32:23 -0500
From: Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 4/28/13, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
>> -- for example: large Cable providers getting together and agreeing to
>> implement a 100ms RTT latency penalty for IPv4
> we do not see intentionally damaging our customers as a big sales
> feature. but we think all our competitors should do so.
Yes, I do realize, that because IPv6 is an external benefit
situation, where on the whole the public avoids pain and then
benefits on the whole, with IPv6 adoption, but for the benefits to be
obtained, an internal cost is required with no individual benefit
for a network user (or provider), the actors that would need to
participate: no individual ISP should currently see it as a big sales
feature to make their IPv4 service worse, and no end user should see
IPv6 as something they need to jump on.
But nonetheless, there are ISPs that have undergone the cost to become
IPv6-enabled.
So at least, there is (at some level), in some cases, a potential
willingness of providers
to make some sacrifices that ultimately provide greater benefit to
the network community.
So something like penalize IPv4, or disconnect from IPv4, or
government mandated IPv6, begin to sound like a good idea, only
because there aren't better options, to persuade end users to ignore
short-term pains, adopt IPv6, and let everyone derive the
long-term benefits of IPv6.
> randy
--
-JH
