RE: Game theory and IPv4 to IPv6

[<michael.dillon at bt.com>]

> 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 timeFrom ietf-bounces at ietf.org Thu Mar 15 12:04:44 2007
Return-path: <ietf-bounces at ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HRsKq-0005VH-Mn; Thu, 15 Mar 2007 11:57:48 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HRsKo-0005Sc-RN
	for ietf at ietf.org; Thu, 15 Mar 2007 11:57:46 -0400
Received: from smtp4.smtp.bt.com ([217.32.164.151])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HRsKj-000497-Nf
	for ietf at ietf.org; Thu, 15 Mar 2007 11:57:46 -0400
Received: from i2kc08-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net ([193.113.197.71]) by
	smtp4.smtp.bt.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
	Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:57:40 +0000
Received: from i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net ([193.113.197.26]) by
	i2kc08-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net with Microsoft
	SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:57:36 +0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:57:36 -0000
Message-ID: <78B96171FDCA6E4D8EFA8F39A9CD3E004D8D9D at i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Game theory and IPv4 to IPv6
Thread-Index: Acdm6FqyWjqO8f+AQ8y7wBMFVawtoAAA2OgQAAhLsVAAAxaOYA=From: <michael.dillon at bt.com>
To: <ietf at ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Mar 2007 15:57:36.0992 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[A6E0F600:01C7671A]
X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9
Subject: RE: Game theory and IPv4 to IPv6
X-BeenThere: ietf at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ietf-bounces at ietf.org

 
> 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 at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf