[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal

[Lee Dilkie]

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> That is why the HD-TV changeover is the way it is.  I don't want to
> beat a dead horse but I keep returning to this analogy because it's
> an example of a technological upgrade done properly.  ALL of the
> consmers get screwed over ALL at the SAME time, so there isn't any
> of this nonsense of upsetting the various broadcasters markets -
> your not for example increasing ABC's market share because NBC went
> to HD-TV before they did.  Everyone goes to it all at the same time.
> Consumers have no recourse but to spend the money for converters or
> new TV's.  The increased content is available all at the same time.
>
>
>   
It's an interesting analogy but not a very good fit.

First. The US government is subsidizing some of the cost for consumers 
to get converter boxes, to the tune of 1.4 billon dollars (that's the 
payout, I'm sure program admin costs will add to that) (see 
http://www.wskg.com/analog_shutoff.htm) 
<http://www.wskg.com/analog_shutoff.htm> I don't think I see anyone 
standing up and offering that kind of money here.

Second. The analogy is weak. All the content producers had nothing to 
do, they still produce content the same regardless of the transmission 
media. Those shows using videotape don't need to change, nor do films.

For our conversion, s/w applications need to be re-written to handle the 
change. Some of these applications are at the edge of the network, 
firewalls, routers, for example. Some of these applications are embedded 
in computers, email, web, games, business productivity, client-server, 
sharing, the list is very long. All of these will need to be changed 
before they can work on IPv6. This is a considerably more difficult and 
disruptive than simply switching over one segment of the transport to a 
new format.

A better analogy would be this. Imagine the government mandated the end 
of 70mm 24 fps film next year. From then on, all that can be shown in 
movie theaters would be 130mm 30 fps film. Oh, and there would exist no 
magic converter box to convert movies to the new format(*)... Then 
you're asking for every studio to change out all their film equipment, 
along with the theaters. And old films would have to be re-shot in the 
new format... This would be considerably more disruptive.

(*) - regarding converting ipv4 to ipv6. I have serious doubts about the 
scalability of such proposals. I also wonder how many ALGs will have to 
be developed to handle all the protocols that carry ip addresses within.

I believe that dual-stack is the best forward path and someday in the 
future we can start deploying IPv6-only applications. But you'll need a 
decent working dual-stack penetration to justify a business case and 
before that happens, ISPs need to offer IPv6, home routers need to 
support it, and last and most important, the *killer* IPv6 application 
needs to be invented.

-lee