IPv6 and HTTPS

Mon Apr 29 08:19:32 UTC 2013

On Apr 28, 2013, at 6:37 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 4/28/13, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> I don't see turning IPv4 off as a short-term goal for anyone.
>> OTOH, I do see the cost of maintaining residential IPv4 service escalating
>> over about the next 5-7 years.
> 
> Yes...   Which I interpret to result in an outcome of  less service,
> for more cost, for residential users, eventually,   as long  as  IPv4
> addresses remain demanded in a quantity greater than the number
> available.

The math says that won't work out well. Looks like it is far more economical
for residential providers to simply stop providing IPv4 to any customer that
chooses not to pay a premium for it (steep premium at that).

> Either  (a) CGN, or   (b) Fewer IPv4 subscriptions at higher price per
> subscription,  than would otherwise occured (if IPv4 addresses were
> not scarce).

Yep.

> Is there another possible outcome for residential IPv4 experience that
> you see as likely?

Depends. Unless there is sufficient mass of residential subscribers willing
to pay the premium for CGN (unlikely in my estimation), it'll make the most
sense for residential providers to simply turn off IPv4 services and tell laggard
web sites like Amazon that they are SOL in terms of getting further business
from those customers.

> (Either of those two scenarios is most likely to result in less
> connectivity, fewer network users, higher cost,  and worst service per
> user..)

Briefly… Shortly thereafter, it will result in a mad dash by the afflicted content
providers to get their act together with IPv6.

> On the other hand...   price tag $X  for  IPv6+IPv4,  no option for
> just IPv4,  and   price tag   $X / 2      for just IPv6.

Well, either way you look at it (I think in terms of $X for IPv6, $X*2 for
dual-stack) where $X is close to what you pay today. The math works
out the same, roughly.

> Could provide motivation for the residential users (and their
> destinations) to move towards IPv6.    Once a large enough quantity
> had moved towards IPv6 only,  the price could return to $X for IPv6
> only.

The destinations are the actual problem. The residential users don't care
all that much as long as they can reach their destinations. The only remaining
problem once the destinations are addressed are the consumer electronics
that lack IPv6 support. That's a much easier problem to work around.

> And the price difference could be structured in other forms  (not
> necessarily as a subscription price difference),   it could take a
> non-monetary form,  such as increased privilege,  or more bandwidth
> (greater throughput, higher cap) for IPv6 only users, etc.

Probably not. It's the cost of providing IPv4 services that will escalate. As
such, to do what you are suggesting, they'd have to raise everyone's
subscription prices at the same time as well.

Owen