Re: [v4v6interim] "IPv4->IPv6 is hard"

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

On Oct 20, 2008, at 2:53 PM, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
>> (2) As the ISP, we price IVI addresses (1:1 mapping of IPv4  
>> address, scarce resource) and non-IVI addresses (non-scarce  
>> resource) differently. So it is also economically reasonable.
> Right, this is exactly what i would like to prevent, that ISPs have  
> control on whether their clients are able or not to publish content  
> from their sites

Excuse me?

Trust me, given that you attach to someone's network, they are in  
control of what services they offer you, and they are in a position to  
filter-or-whatever if they want. Given that you have a choice of  
offerings, they are not in control of the choices you make, but they  
can prevent you from making certain choices in their network by not  
offering you the choice.

What Xing Li proposes - and what I propose - is not as onerous as you  
appear to believe. He gives you the option of paying for a directly  
(1:1) translatable address and he doesn't tell you what you may do  
with it. Given that, you have the option of paying for the service he  
is offering or paying for a different one, perhaps one from a  
different ISP - the same choice you have with any ISP. Given that you  
choose to pay for a 1:1 translatable address (just as you would with  
the NAT64 model), you can put any content behind that address that you  
want to.

And in any event, I would really hope that we could avoid political  
agendas here. Last I checked, we're technologists and we are  
describing technology. Pretending that we are preventing ISPs from  
doing one thing or forcing them to do another is a pipe dream. Once it  
is deployed, they're in control.

Let's work on the technology.
_______________________________________________
v4v6interim mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim