Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

[Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

> On Sep 17, 2021, at 21:03 , John R. Levine <johnl () iecc com> wrote:
>
> > > OK, then Disney+ or Hulu or whoever.  Peering wars never end well.  Don't even need postcards, just stick the flyer 
> > > in with the bill.
> >
> > Is that really cheaper and easier than deploying IPv6? Really?
>
> The cost of putting flyers in the bills rounds to zero, so yes, really. I expect these companies all have plans to 
> support v6 eventually, someday, once they're retired and replaced all of the old junk that handles v6 poorly or not 
> at all, but you know about accountants and depreciation.

Unless their infrastructure runs significantly on hardware and software pre-2004 (unlikely), so does the cost of adding 
IPv6 to their content servers. Especially if they’re using a CDN such as Akamai.
> > Remember, I didn’t suggest that Comcast turn off IPv4… I suggested that Comcast start passing along some of the 
> > added expense of maintaining IPv4 connectivity to the customers that want it.
>
> Ah, so they should start adding a gratuitous charge for a feature they have always provided as part of the basic 
> service.  How many milliseconds do you think it'll take for the Congress to haul their CEO in front of a committee?

I doubt that their CEO would get hauled in at all. Even if he did, I would think this would be one of the easiest 
hearings ever for them as literally, they could easily show the increased costs of continuing to provide IPv4 services 
and note that they didn’t want to jack up everyone’s bills to support the customers that need IPv4, so they’ve made 
IPv4 an opt-in value added service instead of punishing customers that don’t patronize laggards. (I’m sure their 
lawyers would say it better, I’m blunt).

> > That day may not be today, but it is coming and I don’t think it’s as far off as you imagine.
>
> Nothing personal, but people have been saying exactly that for about 25 years now.  Please forgive me if I continue 
> not to hold my breath.

Nope… People have been saying that IPv4 would stop being the lingua franca of the internet for 25+ years. There’s still 
hope for that, but I agree it’s been disappointingly and tragically slow.

OTOH, the idea of doing cost-recovery on the additional nuisance that is IPv4 is relatively novel and hasn’t been 
floated that I’m aware of more than 3 or 4 years ago.

Bottom line is that IPv4 continues to increase costs for eyeball providers. They’ll need to recover that cost. At some 
point, the cost will be enough of a differentiator that customers willing to accept v6-only service will get a break.

If they don’t do it as an IPv4 surcharge, they could do it as an IPv6-only discount… That might even be better. Either 
way, the net effect is the same… Suddenly, customers have a monetary advantage to push their content providers toward 
providing v6.

Owen