Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways...
> On Nov 18, 2021, at 5:15 PM, John Gilmore <g...@toad.com> wrote:
>
> Keeping the price of IPv4 addresses reasonable means that dual-stack
> servers can continue to be deployed at reasonable cost, so that it
> doesn't matter whether clients have IPv6 or IPv4. Any company that put
> its services on IPv6-only sites today would be cutting off 65% of their
> potential customers. Even if v6 had 90% of the market, why would a
> company want 10% of its prospects to be unable to reach its service?
I find myself thinking about Reliance JIO, an Indian company. Iirc, their IPv4
and IPv6 statistics are in the slide deck they presented to the IETF a year or
two back, and they came to me/us a little later wanting somehow expand the IPv4
address pool. In short, most of their services are IPv6 only. The only thing
they want IPv4 addresses for is their enterprise customers, who want an IPv4
option wherever IPv6 is an option - so they don’t have to select IPv6.
That’s all we’ll and good if the IPv4 addresses exist and work globally.
Someone (was it you?) noted earlier in the thread that it might be acceptable
to provide IPv4 address space that only worked in certain places. I find myself
thinking about the arguments for a global DNS root. What a regional IPv4
connectivity limit creates is a network that doesn’t work everywhere, meaning
that the government of <> will be incented to deploy that address space locally
within their country and provide a national NAT firewall to somehow protect
their citizens - because of course the bad guys are always somewhere else. Kind
of like the US wants to regulate encryption because nobody outside the US uses
it or whatever. WHATEVER!
I tend to think that if we can somehow bless a prefix and make be global
unicast address space, it needs to become Global Unicast Address Space.
This is becoming a rant, so I’ll stop…
