RE: Game theory and IPv4 to IPv6

["Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker at verisign.com>]

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:tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk] 
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 10:53 AM
> To: ietf at 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 at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf





 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