So the rational choice actors here are the ISPs not the end-users.
Build that constraint into the model.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Chown [mailto:tjc(_at_)ecs(_dot_)soton(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk]
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 10:53 AM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Game theory and IPv4 to IPv6
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 07:37:26AM -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
The problem is that until IPv6 has critical mass it is much
better to be on IPv4 than IPv6.
If there are any grad students reading the list take a look
at the game theory literature and apply it to the transition.
Assume that it's a rat-choice world and that each actor
follows their best interest.
An actor can be in one of several states:
Unconnected
IPv4 connected with own address
IPv4-NAT connected with NAT address
IPv4/IPv6 connected Dual stack
IPv4-NAT/IPv6 connected Dual stack
IPv6 connected
Unfortunately most of the rats cannot choose certain states,
so the game
is fundamentally flawed. The ISPs are keeping the cheese to
themselves.
Squeak.
--
Tim
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf