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

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

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