> On Jan 17, 2019, at 12:40 PM, John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote:
>
> In article <39bfcd05-62cb-46c7-83e6-0cc25d393...@delong.com> you write:
>> If v6 were such a problem as described, I think it wouldn’t be so readily
>> embraced by facebook, google, Comcast, Netflix, etc.
>
> Their priorities are probably not your priorities. For example, I
> expect they want to be able to distinguish among the devices behind a
> v4 NAT so they can segment and market more precisely.
That’s already relatively easy to do through other mechanisms (cookies anyone).
Having had in depth conversations with the people running those networks, I can
assure you that a number of their priorities are in line with mine: a stable,
functional internet that can accommodate existing users and scale for a
workable future.
That simply isn’t possible in IPv4. It hasn’t been for years. IPv4 continues to
degrade. Eventually it will reach a point where the problems are so obvious
that they can no longer be ignored by the laggards that still haven’t
implemented IPv6.
One of several things will eventually resolve that issue:
1. The remaining content providers failing to support IPv6 become
sufficiently insignificant that ISPs turning off
IPv4 will consider the revenue lost by losing customers that
care to be significantly less than the cost to continue
supporting IPv4 for those customers.
2. Enough eyeball ISPs will begin charging a premium for IPv4
services to cover the growing cost of maintaining this
backwards compatibility that it drives a user revolt against
the sites described in the previous paragraph, thus
accelerating situation 1 above.
3. A sufficient critical mass of eyeballs are connected to IPv6
only networks that don’t offer IPv4 backwards compatibility
that the content providers that fail to support them recognize
significant revenue drop.
I suspect that the most likely scenario will be 2 accelerating 1, but it could
play out in any of the above ways.
Bottom line is that anyone still supporting IPv4 only is basically running on a
toxic-polluter business model depending on everyone else to cover the growing
costs of the mess they are making of the current internet.
Owen
