4 ms·
maybe what we need to do is have servers/networks that validate that whether a client supports IP6 or not. And if it doesn't, start serving those requests more
by stretchwithme 17y ago
maybe what we need to do is have servers/networks that validate that whether a client supports IP6 or not. And if it doesn't, start serving those requests more slowly than others.
Of course, that means a lot of code changes. but it will definitely create incentives to get ready for a change
if speed declines for you 10% a month for a year, you'll consider upgrading. and if outages are scheduled for you that at first last 5 minutes, then 15, then 30, eventually I expect people will take the actions required to get ready for a scheduled switch to IP6
its all a bit heavy handed though. its much better if we gave people more performance for making the switch and somehow passed the real costs of the delay on to people that insist on delaying.
maybe we should just have a market price for ip4 addresses and you pay that price unless you upgrade
- loup-vaillant 17y agoThe problem is giving up performance for the current overwhelming majority of computers. Slowing down YouTube slowing down for IPv4 computer won't create an incentive to upgrade those computers. It will be an incentive to leave YouTube for a faster competitor. This strategy requires a whole group of players to move simultaneously. We're back to the chicken-and-egg problem.
- stretchwithme 17y agowell, could the NETWORK serve requests made by IP6-ready machines more quickly, if so programmed?
- loup-vaillant 17y agoIt already does for other criteria, like how much is paid by the content provider to have the relevant cable "still work flawlessly" (such behaviour sometimes raises a scandal). The problem is the network you talk about is a bunch of interconnected machines and cables, each under the control of some entity, which is often a profitable company. What you propose would be very difficult if you want to preserve (the illusion of) net neutrality.