We've already discussed it... [LWN.net]

We've already discussed it...

Posted Jan 31, 2011 11:53 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252)
In reply to: Agree 100% by cmccabe
Parent article: LCA: IP address exhaustion and the end of the open net

Maybe this reflects my ignorance, but I don't see why that would be easy, even with a government mandate. If compatibility between IPv4 and IPv6 is an "insane scheme," then what is the alternative? Just don't use the internet for "a year or two"? Come back soon-- under construction!

Why will you want this? By the date X no new connections without IPv6 are allowed, after date Y all connections with IPv4 must be upgraded, by date Z IPv4 is disabled. Simple and effective. Witness similar transition working as planned.

Nothing happens instantaneously. Even recalls of tainted food take a few weeks to happen. The lack of any transition plan seems very foolish.

The idea that it can be done using "market forces" is foolish as you've showed later. Where "market forces" does not work government should. The problem here was that IETF did so much without government mandates they believed they can convince ISPs to do the transition.

3. IPv4 will allow ISPs to charge extra for things that are now free. For example, having your very own IP address, as opposed to NAT privileges, will one day cost you.

One day may cost you? "White" IP is rare commodity outside of US. It may cost you between $4 and $10 per month. Not a large sum, but if you'll recal that slowest NATed internet access is in the same price range...

4. IPv4 will eventually force the use of NAT. NAT will make it even harder for customers to use P2P programs.

Well, it's a problem only for unpopular stuff. If there are 1000 people with the stuff you need/want someone will have "white IP". Yes, in the distant future it'll be a problem, but not today. Low-bandwidth P2P uses automatic relays (think Skype).

Since, at least in the US, those P2P programs compete with the ISP's own "content offerings," that's all gravy to them. Comcast would love it if the new shape of the internet makes bittorrent impossible.

Yup. And you have limited amount of local ISPs to choose from. Often just one. That's why government regulation makes sense.

(Log in to post comments)

Why do you need an "Internet Dictator" ?

Posted Feb 1, 2011 14:53 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

there is no Internet Dictator who can enforce a policy like this.

Actually there is as shown quite recently. You can easily enforce such rule in a single country and for internations efforts there are WTO and other similar organizations. It's not like Internet exist in vacuum and can exist government regulations...

Yes, it's completely different approach from the existing one, but it's kinda strange to see so much energy expended on one kind of approach while another is completely ignored.

Why do you need an "Internet Dictator" ?

Posted Feb 2, 2011 9:39 UTC (Wed) by cmccabe (guest, #60281) [Link]

Um, I don't think Egypt leaving the wider Internet shows that international cooperation always works well. I'm sure that the US isn't happy that they did that. Rather, it proves that the Internet is a patchwork of national networks and governments will get the last say, no matter what the international community thinks.

The WTO's powers are not what you seem to think. It's not like the WTO can give marching orders Hu Jintao or Barack Obama. Rather, the WTO is sort of a forum for nations to talk to each other. Both China and the US, and a lot of other countries, have anti-free trade policies that the WTO is powerless to change. For example, the US gives tons of subsidies to farmers, who then use it to undercut farmers in the third world. China keeps its currency artificially cheap to pump up exports, and tends not to enforce any intellectual property laws at all (unless the owner of said property is Chinese.)

Or think about the 2010 United Nations convention on climate change. China and India basically refused to agree to any greenhouse reductions at all. With the greatest possible tact and diplomacy, they said "screw you." China builds a new coal-fired power plant every day and has no plans to slow.

International cooperation may work in the case of the IPv6 transition. Then again, it may not. Time will tell.

We've already discussed it...

Posted Feb 4, 2011 21:18 UTC (Fri) by sorpigal (subscriber, #36106) [Link]

For IPv4->IPv6 to be like DTV we'd need for it to (1) only effect one country, (2) for that country's government to mandate that all new devices starting years prior to the cutoff date be compatible with the new system and (3) for there to be a millions of dollars allocated for the purpose of giving away compatible equipment.