That's evil. Charge what it costs to provide each service. If and when it costs more to provide IPv4 service (and only then), then charge more for it. I imagine in a few years the tradeoff: IPv6 has less connectivity (IPv4 clients can't reach you), but IPv4 is more expensive (pay for the address). Then the tide might turn.
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 17:34:48 -0500 From: Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com> To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Cc: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: IPv6 and HTTPS Message-ID: <CAAAwwbWyrT4dbqoXwQ-QKhGou15voeNBtr8qBbkLchX90t87Lg@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 4/28/13, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
Doing away with IPv4 isn't a sane short-term goal for anyone who wants global internet connectivity/reachability, period.
Breaking global connectivity is bad. I don't see networks turning off ipv4.
I would favor differentiation of network characteristics -- eg Make IPv4 a service just for bulk transfer applications. make IPv6 the best choice for interactive applications.
-- for example: large Cable providers getting together and agreeing to implement a 100ms RTT latency penalty for IPv4; in other words, heavy buffering of IPv4 traffic, and heavy oversubscription (Resulting in greater total performance throughput for data transfers over Bittorrent or microtransport, but less perception of performance for interactive applications).
This is probably what they already have, just stop trying to throttle IPv4 users, so to encourage IPv6 adoption -- they just need to make have some high capacity IPv6 only links, and make it an uncongested service, that will provide additional benefits to application developers to favor it.
Under these conditions, IPv6 service can be higher. Don't give it away for free; the IPv6 Cable/DSL service should have twice the cost for the end user as the IPv4 service does, so that they feel the IPv6 service is of value, and should include all the assistance to achieve the greater performance.
The exhaustion of IPv4 address space also creates an inertia against users switching around IPv4 providers (due to insufficient IP address space available to accommodate build out of new infrastructure); therefore, content providers would be incentivized to get people accessing their site over IPv6.
E.g. dedicated higher-capacity links for IPv6, and less buffering to minimize latency, that way web sites initially get an incentive to become IPv6-enabled destinations, in the form of perceived improvements in performance; without breaking connectivity.
On 4/29/13, Jakob Heitz <jakob.heitz@ericsson.com> wrote:
That's evil. Charge what it costs to provide each service. If and when it costs more to provide IPv4 service (and only then), then charge more for it.
Which of the below do you suggest is evil? Offering an IPv6 only service and charging a lower price for it? Charging more for a service than it costs? Or attempting to use pricing to manipulate consumer behavior? Just to be clear... using pricing, discounts, and such to manipulate consumer behavior is pretty standard, and such topics are complex and messy... we should therefore only be concerned with likely effectiveness and operational aspects, for IPv6 and v4 exhaustion, in that regard.. on an operators list. Most residential providers are for-profit entities, and therefore, do not charge what each service costs, as the price: there is always bound to be some margin, and they are supposed to be pricing services, to achieve their business objectives, which could include directing customers towards products that have a greater likelihood of being viable and highest revenue in the future. It falls within their free will to select or adjust their pricing, so no, discounting an IPv6 or seeking more for a service combining IPv4 and v6 won't be evil in and of itself. If a service provider is intending to charge exactly what each service costs, then they should either not be in that business due to poor performance, doing something differently, or management is suppressing their company's revenue, failing in their fiduciary duties to shareholders, which is evil, (but ultimately represents opportunity for a competitor).
I imagine in a few years the tradeoff: IPv6 has less connectivity (IPv4 clients can't reach you), but IPv4 is more expensive (pay for the address). Then the tide might turn.
I'm more concerned about all the pain exhaustion causes in the interim; which is definitely not mitigated through every operator just sitting and waiting. -- -JH
participants (2)
-
Jakob Heitz -
Jimmy Hess