nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 and HTTPS
From: Jimmy Hess <mysidia () gmail com>
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 17:34:48 -0500
On 4/28/13, Randy Bush <randy () psg com> wrote:
Doing away with IPv4 isn't a sane short-term goal for anyonewho 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. etc. etc.
folk who advocate disconnecting from ipv4 should lead by example or stfu. either way, it would reduce the drivel level.
randy
-- -JH
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 and HTTPS, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 and HTTPS Bernhard Amann (Apr 25)
- Re: IPv6 and HTTPS Don Gould (Apr 26)
- Re: IPv6 and HTTPS Jima (Apr 26)
- Re: IPv6 and HTTPS shawn wilson (Apr 26)
- Re: IPv6 and HTTPS Jima (Apr 26)
- Re: IPv6 and HTTPS Mark Andrews (Apr 27)
- Re: IPv6 and HTTPS Erik Muller (Apr 27)
- Re: IPv6 and HTTPS Jima (Apr 26)
- Re: IPv6 and HTTPS Owen DeLong (Apr 27)
- Re: IPv6 and HTTPS Jima (Apr 27)
- Re: IPv6 and HTTPS Randy Bush (Apr 28)
- Re: IPv6 and HTTPS Jimmy Hess (Apr 28)
- Re: IPv6 and HTTPS Randy Bush (Apr 28)
- Re: IPv6 and HTTPS Jimmy Hess (Apr 28)
- Re: IPv6 and HTTPS Owen DeLong (Apr 28)
- Re: IPv6 and HTTPS Jimmy Hess (Apr 28)
- Re: IPv6 and HTTPS Owen DeLong (Apr 29)
- Re: IPv6 and HTTPS Jack Bates (Apr 29)
- Re: IPv6 and HTTPS Owen DeLong (Apr 29)
- Re: IPv6 and HTTPS Jack Bates (Apr 29)
- Re: IPv6 and HTTPS Owen DeLong (Apr 29)
- Re: IPv6 and HTTPS Jack Bates (Apr 29)