> If it was profitable, the ISP would do it and pocket the now unnecessary service costs.
This is another "if you ask an economist" situation. In the real world, people will happily spend more effort justifying not doing v6 and working around problems caused by being v4-only than would be needed to just do v6.
> 99.9% people don't want to run their own SMTP server. It's an ultra-niche use case ISP don't care about.
This misses the point. It only takes one person behind CGNAT to get the CGNAT source IPs on a spam list, at which point it affects everyone. Plus spam exists on the web too, it's not an SMTP-only thing.
> There aren't any.
Which is exactly why it's so important to be deploying v6: so there can be v6-only sites. Or rather, more than there are at the moment, because they do exist.
> Look, it's just an internet addressing protocol, not something that justifies legislation.
I've seen an argument that it's already covered by existing legislation: the refusal of large/old providers to support v6, which forces the use of v4 which small/new providers can't get enough of, is beginning to look rather a lot like an abuse of market position. That would make it an anti-trust issue, which definitely falls within the remit of government.
>This is another "if you ask an economist" situation. In the real world, people will happily spend more effort justifying not doing v6 and working around problems caused by being v4-only than would be needed to just do v6.
Yea, I don't like silly economism too, and I know half the jokes too. However, right now IPv4 addresses aren't so expensive. Sure, way more expensive than the 0 bucks they should cost, but not that expensive in the grand scheme of things.
Here's a very rough calculation: The cost of IPv4 will start to bite when getting the needed addresses costs more than a single engineer salary where one lives. If a one time address buy costs less, it's not something business would care much for, and anti-trust won't touch it.
I'm not smart enough to be able to forecast pricing, right now it's not there yet. Eventually the price will force every public network to IPv6, while many private networks will remain IPv4 forever.
This is another "if you ask an economist" situation. In the real world, people will happily spend more effort justifying not doing v6 and working around problems caused by being v4-only than would be needed to just do v6.
> 99.9% people don't want to run their own SMTP server. It's an ultra-niche use case ISP don't care about.
This misses the point. It only takes one person behind CGNAT to get the CGNAT source IPs on a spam list, at which point it affects everyone. Plus spam exists on the web too, it's not an SMTP-only thing.
> There aren't any.
Which is exactly why it's so important to be deploying v6: so there can be v6-only sites. Or rather, more than there are at the moment, because they do exist.
> Look, it's just an internet addressing protocol, not something that justifies legislation.
I've seen an argument that it's already covered by existing legislation: the refusal of large/old providers to support v6, which forces the use of v4 which small/new providers can't get enough of, is beginning to look rather a lot like an abuse of market position. That would make it an anti-trust issue, which definitely falls within the remit of government.