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.
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. Either (a) CGN, or (b) Fewer IPv4 subscriptions at higher price per subscription, than would otherwise occured (if IPv4 addresses were not scarce). Is there another possible outcome for residential IPv4 experience that you see as likely? (Either of those two scenarios is most likely to result in less connectivity, fewer network users, higher cost, and worst service per user..) On the other hand... price tag $X for IPv6+IPv4, no option for just IPv4, and price tag $X / 2 for just IPv6. 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. 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. -- -JH