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

[Mark Andrews <[e-mail]>]

In message <[e-mail]>, Eric Rescorla writes:
> 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

Having IPv4 traffic increases the cost for the ISP and in turn the
customers.

Not preferencing IPv6 makes it much harder to determine when to
turn off IPv4 altogether and to leave IPv4 as a service to third
parties to provide like HE.NET have provided IPv6 as a service for
lots of people over the last decade and a bit.

If you don't preference IP6 you end up with 50% IPv4 and 50% IPv6
and having to support IPv4 as a service for ever.  You also end up
having to maintain both IPv4 and IPv6 servers.

This document is still has too much bias towards IPv4 in it.  It
doesn't leave enough time for a single DNS request to get to the
other side of the world and back when there is a cache miss for the
AAAA lookup and a cache hit for the A lookup before attempting the
IPv4 connection.  It assumes there will be either cache hits for
both or cache misses for both.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: [phone]                 INTERNET: [e-mail]