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 <mysi...@gmail.com> > To: Randy Bush <ra...@psg.com> > Cc: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@nanog.org> > Subject: Re: IPv6 and HTTPS > Message-ID: > <caaawwbwyrt4dbqoxwq-qkhgou15voenbtr8qbbklchx90t8...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On 4/28/13, Randy Bush <ra...@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.
