Keith Moore writes:
| the core will support v6 when it makes economic sense - i.e. when
| top tier ISPs can save enough on bandwidth and support costs (as compared
| to tunneling) to make the investment worthwhile.
Perry Metzger had this to say a long time ago (1999 12 03):
Peter made the absurd statement at DC that he'd be willing to provide
v6 at some high multiple of the price of v4. Why should we bother? I
can just pay 5% more for the extra bandwidth encapsulation will
consume and ignore you until such time as you decide it is in your
interest to offer native service.
Clearly he agrees with you that the core of the Internet can
effectively run IPv4ever, or at least until there is a clear
advantage to running IPv6.
Peter Lothberg, meanwhile, has proposed a price which would
make it worthwhile for certain ISPs to become dual-protocol.
I'm sure others would be interested. Maybe you guys can convince
the U.S. and European Taxpayers to pay this cost through direct
and indirect government grants and subsidies to ISPs and ISPs'
customers, sort-of like what used to happen in the OSI days?
| as for your AM vs. FM analogy - there are a variety of theories about
| this, ranging anywhere from artifically making v4 addresses even
| more scarce to encouraging a run on v4 address space and making them
| scarce that way.
I would like to see a market develop for IPv4 addresses, along the
lines of the late PIARA work. This would also encourage a
market for routing-table entries, both of which would produce a significant
incentive to dramatically improve upon on-the-fly host-renumbering.
There is no reason to believe a PIARA-style market for IPv6 addresses
and routing-table entries could not also be interesting and perhaps useful.
There is clearly a "price" associated with receiving a TLA allocation,
namely the compliance with a number of IETF-produced rules with respect
to how one conducts one's business. I counterbid $1000 in U.S. currency.
Sean.
P.S. by "routing-table entries", I mean of course, not just the
consumption of memory and CPU resources in forwarding packets
in to large numbers of possible destinations, but also the cost
in various resources (bandwidth, CPU, complexity) of acquiring
and propagating information which may lead to routing-table changes.