Had an idea the other day; we just need someone with a lot of cash
(google, apple, etc) to buy Netflix and then make all new releases
v6-only for the first 48 hours. I bet my lame Brighthouse and Fios
service would be v6-enabled before the end of the following week lol.
David
Yeah, i am sure VZ is going to cry a river that you cannot reach Netflix
We already slowed down IPv4 by 10-15%*, i think we can crank it down
another 10-20% to punish the Luddites (AWS, Azure, Twitter, Bing, ...)
CB
I think he means new releases are v6 for the first 48 hours...then trickle
to v4. Which means that people wanting to see that new release urgently
would have to wait two days.
Netflix is definitely not the service to do that. Hulu, Amazon or HBO GO
maybe. Netflix content tends to be pretty old (apart from their own
content, of course).
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
Well the good news is that Netflix does IPv6 for video content streaming, the bad news is that the IPv4 “slow down” (aka baseline) won’t make the video content go slower 
And yes, I guess, if we could make AWS more IPv6-ish then Netflix v6only might actually become possible for people who want to.
/bz
another good idea is to design a migration path to ipv6 so that people
using hte internet can also use the ipv6-internet.
that would be cool.
we should probably think about some migration path other than the pretty
obviously implausible "dual stack" silliness before this stuff actually
becomes a necessity, otherwise lots of people will end up spinning their
wheels trying to figure out how to "convince people" to use a
non-internet-connected protocol rather than just keeping on using ipv4.
i'll bet some smart people are already on that problem, though.
keep me posted! 
t
Sounds like a plan, let's do it.
Ban the selling of IPv4 only home routers. The continued sale of
these devices is just creating a e-waste problem.
I think this is more "feasible" if Netflix offered a dedicated, 24/7/365
pr0n channel that only streamed on IPv6.
If an IPv4-only Netflix subscriber tried to tune to that, they'd get a
big fat "IPv6 required to view this FREE content. Please contact your
service provider blah blah blah" on their TV screen.
That could facilitate a "bottom-up" push; perhaps the only time we'll
ever hear customers requesting for IPv6.
Leave all the regular programming on IPv4 - we all know what drives
Internet traffic anyway :-).
Mark.
s/creating an/exacerbating the/
Owen
With Netflix people might just dump the service, however, if you change all the social diarrhea sites (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc...) over to v6 only overnight, you either force the net to adopt v6 or people to talk to each other. Either way, it's a win-win.
In a message written on Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 04:37:19PM -0400, David Hubbard wrote:
Had an idea the other day; we just need someone with a lot of cash
(google, apple, etc) to buy Netflix and then make all new releases
v6-only for the first 48 hours. I bet my lame Brighthouse and Fios
service would be v6-enabled before the end of the following week lol.
If only people were forced to deploy IPv6...like perhaps because they
couldn't get any more IPv4 addresses. Maybe we should stop issuing
IPv4 addresses?
(Did I need to put sarcasam tags around that, I hope not!)
This only helps 1/3 of the challenge. Even with most Comcast customers
able to obtain IPv6 today and over 70% provisioned with IPv6, less than
20% of the traffic is IPv6. There is still a need to address home device
support and content provider adoption.
We will never get there 100%. There are many sites out there running 100%
on autopilot. They will stay IPv4 forever until the server crashes and
never comes back online.
The same will be true for many homes. People who don't want to change
anything. They will keep Windows XP and whatever antique device they use to
connect to the internet until the thing catches fire from the accumulated
dust. And then they will go on ebay to buy a replacement exactly the same.
Remember that people with Windows XP with their ancient version of Internet
Explorer already can not access many sites. They don't care.
I believe the real goal is to get to a point, where people will accept the
more invasive transition technologies such as NAT64, because everything
they care about is IPv6 enabled.
At some point people will start making IPv6 only sites, because everyone
they know have IPv6 access. At that point the internet will split into two
- the people that have access to the whole thing (IPv6+IPv4) and the
IPv4-only people. Yet a lot of those IPv4-only people will stay IPv4-only
even though they know they are missing out on something. Because Gmail and
Facebook will always be available on IPv4 and that is all they care about.
Regards,
Baldur
> This only helps 1/3 of the challenge. Even with most Comcast customers
> able to obtain IPv6 today and over 70% provisioned with IPv6, less than
> 20% of the traffic is IPv6. There is still a need to address home device
> support and content provider adoption.
>We will never get there 100%. There are many sites out there running 100%
on autopilot. They will stay IPv4 forever until the server crashes and
never comes back online.The same will be true for many homes. People who don't want to change
anything. They will keep Windows XP and whatever antique device they use to
connect to the internet until the thing catches fire from the accumulated
dust. And then they will go on ebay to buy a replacement exactly the same.
Windows XP does IPv6 fine so long as there is a IPv4 recursive
server available. It's just a simple command to install IPv6.
netsh interface ipv6 install
Installing a DNS proxy / nameserver on 127.0.0.1 that talks IPv6
will allow it to run on a IPv6 only network once you tell it to
talk to 127.0.0.1.
named with this named.conf would suffice. Named talks IPv6 by
default.
options {
listen-on { 127.0.0.1; };
};
We did something like this for the IPv6 only experiment at a IETF
plenary years ago now.
As for buying a exact replacement, thats becoming hard these day.
Remember that people with Windows XP with their ancient version of Internet
Explorer already can not access many sites. They don't care.I believe the real goal is to get to a point, where people will accept the
more invasive transition technologies such as NAT64, because everything
they care about is IPv6 enabled.At some point people will start making IPv6 only sites, because everyone
they know have IPv6 access. At that point the internet will split into two
- the people that have access to the whole thing (IPv6+IPv4) and the
IPv4-only people. Yet a lot of those IPv4-only people will stay IPv4-only
even though they know they are missing out on something. Because Gmail and
Facebook will always be available on IPv4 and that is all they care about.
Actually I don't expect Gmail and Facebook to be IPv4 only forever.
Just about all user equipement that talks to these sites is already
IPv6 capable including Windows XP.
For most homes the only thing holding them back from talking IPv6
is the lack of a IPv6 home router and the ISP being to lazy to
deploy it. $50 addresses the first of those problems.
Windows XP does IPv6 fine so long as there is a IPv4 recursive
server available. It's just a simple command to install IPv6.netsh interface ipv6 install
If the customer knew how to do that he wouldn't still be using Windows XP.
Actually I don't expect Gmail and Facebook to be IPv4 only forever.
Gmail and Facebook are already dual stack enabled. But I do not see
Facebook turning off IPv4 for a very long time. Therefore a customer that
only uses the Internet for a few basic things will be able to get along
with being IPv4-only for a very long time.
IPv6 has no killer feature for this customer segment. They will be upgraded
the next time they move and get new equipment. Otherwise they will stay
with what they got until the retirement home.
Regards,
Baldur
Yes and no…
I think you are right about facebook.
However, I think eventually the residential ISPs are going to start charging extra
for IPv4 service. Some residences may pay for it initially, but if they think there’s a
way to move away from it and the ISPs start fingerpointing to the specific laggards,
you’ll see a groundswell of consumers pushing to find alternatives.
Owen
ipv6 is going to force a lot of consumers to replace hardware. Worse, it's not easy to set up and get right as ipv4 is.
--Curtis
You’re going to have to elaborate on that one…. I think IPv6 is actually quite a bit easier than IPv4, so please explicate
in what ways it is harder to set up and get right?
For the average household, it’s plug the IPv6-capable router in and let it go.
For more advanced environments, it might take nearly as much effort as IPv4 and the unfamiliarity might add a couple
of additional challenges the first time, but once you get past that, IPv6 has a lot of features that actually make it
easier than IPv4.
Not having to deal with NAT being just one of the big ones.
Owen
ISP's will not charge too much. With too expensive IPv4 many customers will migrate from v4/dual stack to v6-only and ISP's will be left with unused IPv4 addresses and less income.
Will ISP's still find other profitable usage for v4 addresses? If not, they will be probably be quite slowly rising IPv4 pricing, not wanting to overprice it.
Even with $1/IPv4/month - what will be the ROI of a brand new home router?
However, I think eventually the residential ISPs are going to start charging extra
for IPv4 service.ISP's will not charge too much. With too expensive IPv4 many customers will migrate from v4/dual stack to v6-only and ISP's will be left with unused IPv4 addresses and less income.
Nope… They’ll be left with unused IPv4 addresses which is not a significant source of income and they’ll be able to significantly reduce the costs incurred
in supporting things like CGNAT.
Will ISP's still find other profitable usage for v4 addresses? If not, they will be probably be quite slowly rising IPv4 pricing, not wanting to overprice it.
Probably they will sell it to business customers instead of the residential customers. However, we’re talking about relatively large numbers of customers
for relatively small numbers of IPv4 addresses that aren’t producing revenue directly at this time anyway.
Even with $1/IPv4/month - what will be the ROI of a brand new home router?
About 2.5 years at that price since a brand new home router is about $29.
Owen