Re: [v6ops] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis-05: (with COMMENT)

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

Right. Hence my question on whether we can agree that IPv6 is cheaper. If
we can agree on that, then we can justify the recommendations that way.

Personally I think it's pretty clear that in the long term and at Internet
scale, IPv6 is cheaper.

On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 9:08 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> That's reasonable, I suppose, but (a) not everyone is on mobile and (b)
>>>> the endpoint's interests may not align with yours.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Those factors are in no way specific to mobile networks.
>>>> IPv4 addresses and NATs cost money for everyone. Stateless translation
>>>> doesn't use NAT, but because it's stateless, port space has to be assigned
>>>> in advance, so it consumes more IPv4 space than stateful translation.
>>>> Public IPv4 to users is already infeasible for new entrants, and will
>>>> be infeasible in the sort to medium term incumbents.
>>>>
>>>> I don't see any cheaper alternative than IPv6. Do you?
>>>>
>>>
>>> As I said, the endpoints have different incentives, namely to get the
>>> best performance for their users.
>>>
>>> If IPv4 and IPv6 paths are equally fast for the user, then delaying
>>> attempts to connect v4 in cases where v4 resolves first makes the user's
>>> experience slower.
>>>
>>
>> Sure, but my question was about cost. Perhaps we agree that in the long
>> term IPv6 is cheaper, even if we don't agree that it's better.
>>
>
> I wasn't trying to answer your question. My concern is the suitability of
> the recommendations this document makes and the rationales that it provides
> for them.
>
> -Ekr
>
>
>