Re: Game theory and IPv4 to IPv6
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 07:37:26AM -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: The problem is that until IPv6 has critical mass it is much better to be on IPv4 than IPv6. If there are any grad students reading the list take a look at the game theory literature and apply it to the transition. Assume that it's a rat-choice world and that each actor follows their best interest. An actor can be in one of several states: Unconnected IPv4 connected with own address IPv4-NAT connected with NAT address IPv4/IPv6 connected Dual stack IPv4-NAT/IPv6 connected Dual stack IPv6 connected Unfortunately most of the rats cannot choose certain states, so the game is fundamentally flawed. The ISPs are keeping the cheese to themselves. Squeak. -- Tim ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Game theory and IPv4 to IPv6
Interesting angle here ;-) The ISPs are keeping the cheese to themselves. But, the current kind of cheese is running out, and is a little stinky in ways. The new kind of cheese is very abundant, but unfortunately comes at an opportunity cost to get to it from here. Looking at this from game theory angle, looks like a setup for a long period of holdoff (protect interests) followed by a massive and rapid flood to the other camp (fight for the new pie ... er ... cheese). (caveat, armchair game theorist ;-) -- Peter Tim Chown [EMAIL PROTECTED] 15.03.07 10:53 To: ietf@ietf.org cc: Subject:Re: Game theory and IPv4 to IPv6 On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 07:37:26AM -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: The problem is that until IPv6 has critical mass it is much better to be on IPv4 than IPv6. If there are any grad students reading the list take a look at the game theory literature and apply it to the transition. Assume that it's a rat-choice world and that each actor follows their best interest. An actor can be in one of several states: Unconnected IPv4 connected with own address IPv4-NAT connected with NAT address IPv4/IPv6 connected Dual stack IPv4-NAT/IPv6 connected Dual stack IPv6 connected Unfortunately most of the rats cannot choose certain states, so the game is fundamentally flawed. The ISPs are keeping the cheese to themselves. Squeak. -- Tim ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Game theory and IPv4 to IPv6
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: The problem is that until IPv6 has critical mass it is much better to be on IPv4 than IPv6. Yes, because of latency, No because of NAT's. If there are any grad students reading the list take a look at the game theory literature and apply it to the transition. Assume that it's a rat-choice world and that each actor follows their best interest. [ postgrad hat on ;) ] There is a reason why companies like Demonware (http://www.demonware.net/) exit, they exist solely to provide for a cleanup of the IPv4 mess with NAT's by providing a stable stack that allows them to get around most NAT issues by using mechanisms like STUN. Note that MS has given a very lucrative way of solving this problem by providing Teredo support; games and other programs simply use IPv6, all the NAT issues get solved automagically by Teredo. There are certain costs associated with the various transitions. Latency being the number one problem. Every millisecond extra causes annoyance to users. Unfortunately due to the state of deployment of Teredo relays and other similar techniques these are not usable (yet). The quake approach: client-server works though. P2P is out of the question in many of those cases though. The benefit of being in the IPv4 or IPv6 network is proportional to the size of the networks. I don't have time to run full simulation runs but my preliminary trials suggest that IPv6 is not relevant to the IPv4 exhaustion issue. IPv4 will run out either way. IPv6 won't slow it down for a even a day. Most, if not all, people using IPv6 also have IPv4 connectivity. IPv6 connectivity in general is non-NATted, while IPv4 is behind a NAT. Want to connect to that box behind the NAT? Just use IPv6 and problem solved. Some people tend to just throw around VPN's to those places though. The reason is that the participants are all going to cluster into IPv4/IPv6 or IPv4-NAT/IPv6, there is no incentive I can see to transition to the pure IPv6 state and release the IPv4 addresses. The whole idea of transition is dual-stack. Some people will be on IPv4, others on IPv6. Servers and gateways (SMTP style) will connect them. For instance if you have a IPv6 enabled Quake server (thanks Viagenie) then IPv4 players can also connect to it. Unless you assume that there is a very considerable value to IPv4 over IPv4-NAT all that happens during address exhaustion is that larger and larger proportions of the net disappear behind NATs. In effect you end up with the two speed Internet we want to avoid. No, there is no considerable value of IPv4 over IPv6. There is a considerable value of IPv4 over IPv4 NAT though due this the simple concept called End-To-End, which with IPv6 gets restored so that hosts at least get their own IP address again, avoiding all the rattraps introduced by NAT's. Then again, firewalls can block those people off also again, but that is then the network policy, not because they can't at all do it. (Don't play games at work folks ;) Rather than fight the dynamics of a market with a billion participants I believe that we should embrace them and remember that taking IPv4 to end of life is not exactly an unacceptable outcome. The key is to channel people into IPv4-NAT/IPv6 rather than IPv4-NAT. It also depends on game companies. They should make their games IPv6 compliant so that they at least support it. I am explicitly not saying that they should do IPv6 per default as that will hurt performance in all the cases where quality IPv6 connectivity is unavailable. A toggle to enable it though would be a great step forward. Servers supporting it on the public Internet will then be a second step. The way that I would go about this is to introduce a gold standard for next generation gateways that provide other features that the consumer is likely to consider desirable. Like being maintenance free, working without the complaints and setup time that current devices require. Greets, Jeroen (hoping that Enemy Territory - Quake Wars supports IPv6...) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Game theory and IPv4 to IPv6
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] followed by a massive and rapid flood to the other camp (fight for the new pie ... er ... cheese). I thought the whole point of the new cheese was that there was going to be enough of it that there would never be any reason to fight over it... :-) Noel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Game theory and IPv4 to IPv6
So the rational choice actors here are the ISPs not the end-users. Build that constraint into the model. -Original Message- From: Tim Chown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 10:53 AM To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Game theory and IPv4 to IPv6 On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 07:37:26AM -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: The problem is that until IPv6 has critical mass it is much better to be on IPv4 than IPv6. If there are any grad students reading the list take a look at the game theory literature and apply it to the transition. Assume that it's a rat-choice world and that each actor follows their best interest. An actor can be in one of several states: Unconnected IPv4 connected with own address IPv4-NAT connected with NAT address IPv4/IPv6 connected Dual stack IPv4-NAT/IPv6 connected Dual stack IPv6 connected Unfortunately most of the rats cannot choose certain states, so the game is fundamentally flawed. The ISPs are keeping the cheese to themselves. Squeak. -- Tim ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Game theory and IPv4 to IPv6
An actor can be in one of several states: You rigged the list of states. There is more than one possible state that include IPv6 connected as the baseline. For instance, IPv6 connected with access to 6/4 web proxy and 6/4 smtp forwarder. There are other possibilities. Consider a large community of users (community meaning they communicate a lot with each other) who have such an IPv6 service. They can freely use IPv6 supporting applications with no NAT worries. Access to the v4 Internet is restricted but no more so than in the average v4 corporate network. Now what if that large community of users is a country where people do not speak one of the world's top ten languages. The game is too complex for game theory to analyze since it is too hard to get the right list of states. Rather than fight the dynamics of a market with a billion participants I believe that we should embrace them and remember that taking IPv4 to end of life is not exactly an unacceptable outcome. The key is to channel people into IPv4-NAT/IPv6 rather than IPv4-NAT. I would be slightly less specific and say that we should channel people into IPv6-gateway-IPv4, meaning that they get IPv6 connectivity but some sort of gateway support services to access IPv4 hosts. Those gateway support services will probably be a whole smorgasbord of things including Teredo and simple dual-stack proxy servers. Perhaps the pioneers will be those ISPs who currently offer some sort of managed/restricted service such as Family Safe Internet or Christian Net. It doesn't matter who takes the first steps. Once the technical principle is shown to be workable and profitable, others will adopt it. The way that I would go about this is to introduce a gold standard for next generation gateways that provide other features that the consumer is likely to consider desirable. Like being maintenance free, working without the complaints and setup time that current devices require. I agree that those are desirable goals for the gateway standard. --Michael Dillon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Game theory and IPv4 to IPv6
Not sure I'm phrasing this correctly in this context, but I don't think that service providers are the rational choice actors in this scenario - any more than equipment vendors are. It seems to me the main actors in applying gaming to this problem are still the end users. It is the case that their actions are limited by multiple levels of indirection, since end users affect service provider choices (via service selection), which then affects vendor choices (via equipment purchases). In the actor mix are equipment vendors (who must justify RD expenses in terms of their customer willingness to spend money), service providers (who likewise need to justify the amortization of capital expenses and the expected additional operating costs in terms of their own customer's willingness to spend money) and end users (whose willingness to spend money on both services and equipment is somewhat vaguely assumed). On the flip side, the services that a service provider may offer are limited by the capabilities of the equipment that vendors provide and - obviously - the services end users may choose are limited by what's offered to them by service providers. I suspect that what makes this hard to use predictively in general is an entirely subjective guess that has to be made with respect the degree of flexibility the actors have in accepting choices presented to them by other actors. At what point will end-users choose no services over any of the service options presented to them? At what point will service providers, end-users, or both, choose not to buy any equipment over the equipment choices presented to them? -- Eric Gray Principal Engineer Ericsson -Original Message- From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 11:58 AM To: Tim Chown; ietf@ietf.org Subject: RE: Game theory and IPv4 to IPv6 So the rational choice actors here are the ISPs not the end-users. Build that constraint into the model. -Original Message- From: Tim Chown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 10:53 AM To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Game theory and IPv4 to IPv6 On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 07:37:26AM -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: The problem is that until IPv6 has critical mass it is much better to be on IPv4 than IPv6. If there are any grad students reading the list take a look at the game theory literature and apply it to the transition. Assume that it's a rat-choice world and that each actor follows their best interest. An actor can be in one of several states: Unconnected IPv4 connected with own address IPv4-NAT connected with NAT address IPv4/IPv6 connected Dual stack IPv4-NAT/IPv6 connected Dual stack IPv6 connected Unfortunately most of the rats cannot choose certain states, so the game is fundamentally flawed. The ISPs are keeping the cheese to themselves. Squeak. -- Tim ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Game theory and IPv4 to IPv6
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: there is no incentive I can see to transition to the pure IPv6 state and release the IPv4 addresses. Just FYI, INTERNET DRAFT M. Ohta draft-ohta-address-allocation-00.txt Tokyo Institute of Technology Geoff Huston Telstra Corporation Masaki Hirabaru Merit Network, Inc. Jun Murai Keio University May 2000 Usage Based Address Allocation Considered Harmful The More Restricted Assignment Plan No IPv4 address space should be allocated to an ISP, unless the ISP support fully operational fully transparent IPv6 service with at least 64K IPv6 subnets to all the end users. Masataka Ohta PS Your mistake is insisting on release of IPv4 addresses, even though exhaustion of IPv4 addresses is an incentive for IPv6 transition. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
