IPv6 and HTTPS

[jakob.heitz at ericsson.com (Jakob Heitz)]

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 at gmail.com>
> To: Randy Bush <randy at psg.com>
> Cc: North American Network Operators Group <nanog at nanog.org>
> Subject: Re: IPv6 and HTTPS
> Message-ID:
>    <CAAAwwbWyrT4dbqoXwQ-QKhGou15voeNBtr8qBbkLchX90t87Lg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> On 4/28/13, Randy Bush <randy at 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.