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