[162659] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 and HTTPS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Apr 29 04:21:21 2013
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAAwwbUejj1-5Rip2_KwY9egOOXcZj6G7qzSO1wAkGPF8v-uuA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 01:19:32 -0700
To: Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Apr 28, 2013, at 6:37 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/28/13, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>> I don't see turning IPv4 off as a short-term goal for anyone.
>> OTOH, I do see the cost of maintaining residential IPv4 service =
escalating
>> over about the next 5-7 years.
>=20
> Yes... Which I interpret to result in an outcome of less service,
> for more cost, for residential users, eventually, as long as IPv4
> addresses remain demanded in a quantity greater than the number
> available.
The math says that won't work out well. Looks like it is far more =
economical
for residential providers to simply stop providing IPv4 to any customer =
that
chooses not to pay a premium for it (steep premium at that).
> Either (a) CGN, or (b) Fewer IPv4 subscriptions at higher price per
> subscription, than would otherwise occured (if IPv4 addresses were
> not scarce).
Yep.
> Is there another possible outcome for residential IPv4 experience that
> you see as likely?
Depends. Unless there is sufficient mass of residential subscribers =
willing
to pay the premium for CGN (unlikely in my estimation), it'll make the =
most
sense for residential providers to simply turn off IPv4 services and =
tell laggard
web sites like Amazon that they are SOL in terms of getting further =
business
from those customers.
> (Either of those two scenarios is most likely to result in less
> connectivity, fewer network users, higher cost, and worst service per
> user..)
Briefly=85 Shortly thereafter, it will result in a mad dash by the =
afflicted content
providers to get their act together with IPv6.
> On the other hand... price tag $X for IPv6+IPv4, no option for
> just IPv4, and price tag $X / 2 for just IPv6.
Well, either way you look at it (I think in terms of $X for IPv6, $X*2 =
for
dual-stack) where $X is close to what you pay today. The math works
out the same, roughly.
> Could provide motivation for the residential users (and their
> destinations) to move towards IPv6. Once a large enough quantity
> had moved towards IPv6 only, the price could return to $X for IPv6
> only.
The destinations are the actual problem. The residential users don't =
care
all that much as long as they can reach their destinations. The only =
remaining
problem once the destinations are addressed are the consumer electronics
that lack IPv6 support. That's a much easier problem to work around.
> And the price difference could be structured in other forms (not
> necessarily as a subscription price difference), it could take a
> non-monetary form, such as increased privilege, or more bandwidth
> (greater throughput, higher cap) for IPv6 only users, etc.
Probably not. It's the cost of providing IPv4 services that will =
escalate. As
such, to do what you are suggesting, they'd have to raise everyone's
subscription prices at the same time as well.
Owen
