Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: IPv6 and HTTPS
From: Jimmy Hess <mysidia () gmail com>
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 20:37:47 -0500

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


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]