>From: rrg-boun...@irtf.org [mailto:rrg-boun...@irtf.org] On Behalf Of Tom Vest >To: Brian E Carpenter >Cc: RRG; Noel Chiappa > >> IPv4-only providers will indeed end up as dinosaurs. Funny, really, >> that it's the incumbent carriers who seem to be at the lowest risk of >> this. >> >> Brian
<snip> >1. "Strategic rationing" of the more favorable interworking tokens by those >who have them, for use only in their most critical interactions and exchanges, >i.e., with (economic) peers and/or parties with superior bargaining power. As >a result, whatever distinct advantages were provided under the previous >interworking >regime become increasingly rare and inaccessible, esp. to new entrants. <snip> >Bottom line: It's too soon to tell whether TCP/IP will succumb to Gresham's >Law, >but IMO it's way too soon to conclude that the modest uptick in IPv6 >deployment >that we're seeing now, finally, means that the risks associated with a >Gresham's >Law-like adaptation have been eliminated. <snip> I think that we are all talking about variations of a similar future vision, which differs very much (in my own mind, at least) from Tony's DeathI and DeathII. The one addition that I would like to add is that because strong market pressures motivate large end users to not migrate from IPv4, it is probable that these users will preserve their IPv4-only infrastructures for the indefinite future, unless a business case to do otherwise eventually appears. For large IPv4 communities, it is easier to use private addresses in the manner permitted by RANGER to meet future growth needs. (RANGER also supports mixed deployments as well as IPv6-only deployments.) I presume that IPv4 will remain the dominate networking protocol for many years (decades?) after the IPv4 address space has been consumed. However, as IPv4 addresses become harder to obtain, entities requiring new public addresses may have a business case to deploy IPv6. At this current time there is a very high financial penalty to deploy IPv6 due to the comparative immaturity of the products and lack of economies of scale. As the IPv6 deployment grows, the financial penalty to deploy it will diminish. Once the IPv6 deployments achieve critical mass then economics will no longer punish IPv6. It is conceivable that IPv6 will someday become the more economical alternative. The big question is how long in the future will it be until this occurs? However, since the RRG is oriented to ISPs, then I concur with Brian's vision that ISPs will face increasing pressure to deploy dual stacks. They may eventually move to a single IPv6 stack by encapsulating IPv4 into IPv6, but that is unlikely to occur until the IPv6 deployment has achieved a larger market presence. If this is accurate, then ISPs can expect to continue to support an IPv4 majority for a long time. This means a continued growth of inter-domain traffic containing both IPv4 and IPv6. _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
