Re: [members-discuss] IPv4 - Charging Won't Help You
IP Market = resource < demand (charging won’t help) That's simply not true, it's economy 101 basic stuff: demand adjusts based on price. If the price is higher, the demand will fall until it's equal to demand.
Consider the case of large telecom that have an unique IP for every telephone line. A higher price is the only motivation that will encourage them to switch their private VOIP network to IPv6. At that higher price-point their transition will be feasible for them, why still being easily affordable by businesses which need a IPv4 for their website or other critical resources. Resource depletion shouldn't prevent an efficient allocation of scarcity. Vlad On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Tony Turner <tony.turner@nodemax.com>wrote:
Yep we are going for IPv6, we are applying over Xmas. We are not bothered by lack of IPv4. We plan around it.
All I was saying is charging for each IP’s won’t work where as it does in the telecoms market.
IP Market = resource < demand (charging won’t help)
Telecoms Phone Numbers = resource > than demand (charging will help)
So you can charge in telecoms market not in IP market , it won’t make a difference.
Tony
*From:* members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] *On Behalf Of *Joao Silveira *Sent:* 16 December 2013 11:48 *To:* members-discuss@ripe.net *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC
Hi All,
Why not use IPv6. The IPv4 market will go down definitively.
Hugs,
---
Joao Silveira
[image: logo]
On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:34:29 -0000, Tony Turner wrote:
Hi All,
A Fee for a Resource that is significantly smaller than Demand won’t work .... all it will do is create another market for those with extra IP’s ..
What do other markets do when there is a shortage ..... it is not guaranteed to work in this market ....
Never posted on here but here is my 2 pence worth so bear with me ...
Our experience from a telecommunications view is interesting. We had been issued by Ofcom 600 x 10,000 blocks of phone numbers, some ranges were issued in 1K blocks where there was shortage in a town, but if not 10,000 blocks, our mobile range is 100,000
Now we never need 10K blocks for all towns, yes London but not Maldon .... 1K would have been fine.
Now Ofcom have never charged for phone numbers historically, but that has all started to change due to a shortage
and of course lack of Government funding.
First they went to 1K blocks as numbers for a town became scarce....
Now they are starting to charge for numbers in the towns which they say are a conservation area where numbers are scarce.
They charge 10p per number per year, whether allocated to a customer or not.
Now we have given back *promptly* 4 million phone numbers some big mobile companies have also dumped the numbers and services on some of those numbers like broadband VOIP some mobile operators cut the service.
Phone numbers I am sure will never run out so companies not using them will give them back as they know, “hey we can get some more”.
With IP’s that’s different, I think whatever happens IPV4 will run out (or has) whatever approach is taken. The big boys know this and can afford to keep them whatever is charged for them so I doubt the big telcos/ISP’s will ever give them back. Irrespective of a charge.
The only IP’s you may get back if they are charged for is from small operators ... but as IP’s are so scarce I even doubt these will be given back as companies can rent them out as they are a scarce resource with a demand greater than supply unlike UK phone numbers where the demand is less than supply but phone numbers where just allocated on blocks too large (so mis -managed).
You may think great they will rent them out, I doubt the terms of such will make you smile ..
So charging won’t necessarily work.
Regards
Tony
*From:* members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [ mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>] *On Behalf Of *Oliver Bryssau *Sent:* 16 December 2013 09:59 *To:* RIPE *Cc:* members-discuss@ripe.net *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC
Hi All,
I think that post hits the nail on the head perfectly.
I guess if so many of us feel this way we should investigate the Ripe framework to see if there is something that can be done to create positive change.
This would be a great short/medium term solution however we all must look to support ipv6 natively.
Merry Christmas, Oliver
On 16 Dec 2013 09:39, "RIPE" <ripe@centronet.cz> wrote:
Hello,
everyone who says "IPv4 is gone" is living in his/her dreams, denying reality and IPv4 market (and those mentioned average 2 letters/IPv4 requests per day). It may be true for some, but it obviously isn't for others, no matter reasons. While I understand IPv6 propagation, I don't think that punishing/discriminating small IPv4 holders in need for a few more IPs is right. Actually, releasing those big unused IPv4 blocks might have much better impact for IPv6 development, while the small ones would appreciate "a few more C" and it may even be enought for a few more months/years this way.
While I must admit I'm not sure how to do this, some fee for IP addresses sounds like natural way. So I must agree, if you are happy IPv6 user who had no problems to move from IPv4 (or started at IPv6 directly) and doesn't need IPv4 addresses anymore, just return them all and you can stop to care about it and less lucky us. You may even have it cheaper. Saying that you don't need IPv4 because you have IPv6 already sounds like "I don't have this problem so I don't want/need it to be solved and I don't care about others" to me. Or in worse case, it may even be "I like current state because I own those big blocks and I have profit from it". Nothing personal here, I wasn't screening anyone and I don't accuse anyone. Just annoyed from all those "IPv6 solves everything" announcers who are, at same time, so much against returning of any unused IPv4 space. Thanks for your understanding.
Merry Christmas to everyone
Matej Vavrousek CentroNet, a.s.
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Andrea Cocito Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 5:42 PM To: Gert Doering Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC
On Dec 12, 2013, at 5:39 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
IPv4 is *gone*, get over it. No matter of discussion here or elsewhere will bring back IPv4 in quantities needed to "last forever", so all you are doing is postponing the inevitable, and burning lots of effort and money in the denial phase.
Right, then if the fee scheme is changed in that way there will be no problem for LIRs who have millions of IPv4 addresses allocated to release them and save money :)
A.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
The main thing holding “large” providers back from rolling out IPv6 across the board is cost … you’ll have to increase the effective costs of IPv4 to $100 per IP before you’ll be at a point where the cost savings of switching to IPv6 outweigh the costs of depreciating the current IPv4 capable kit and going through natural expansion / upgrades to kit capable of IPv6 Vendors have been slow to produce kit which is IPv6 capable .. they’re starting to do this, but on the whole the big players have been holding off on the $xx million capex spend until the kit they have in place has depreciated sufficiently. Some of the bigger players here in the UK were almost at the point of rolling out kit which is v6 capable when they found that this kit also did CGNAT and rolling out CGN is easier / cheaper than rolling IPv6 “in the short term” Then you have to factor in CPE … from Broadband (and VoIP) perspective not all kit does IPv6 yet Rather than forcing an exponential cost increase in v4 address space, work to roll out IPv6 now and get a _competitive advantage_ against the big boys - then make hay while their accountants tell them they can’t spend money on the v6 kit. When they finally do we might find their land grab pricing has to disappear and they start to cover the costs of the new infrastructure they’ve had to roll out …. All you’ll do by increasing the costs of IPv4 is make the smaller guys less competitive and drive a few more out of business whilst the big boys go “oh well another 20c per user on our cost base, c’est la vie IPv4 is dead. IPv6 is the future. Roll out IPv6 .. push the vendors to provide IPv6 compatible kit … harder I know when the big boys aren’t pushing .. but push never the less .. if enough of us small guys push hard enough then we stand a chance of getting somewhere and maybe getting a competitive advantage over the behemoth again .. for a short while Jon On 18 Dec 2013, at 15:17, Vlad Dascalu <vladd@beetux.com> wrote:
IP Market = resource < demand (charging won’t help) That's simply not true, it's economy 101 basic stuff: demand adjusts based on price. If the price is higher, the demand will fall until it's equal to demand.
Consider the case of large telecom that have an unique IP for every telephone line. A higher price is the only motivation that will encourage them to switch their private VOIP network to IPv6. At that higher price-point their transition will be feasible for them, why still being easily affordable by businesses which need a IPv4 for their website or other critical resources.
Resource depletion shouldn't prevent an efficient allocation of scarcity. Vlad
Jon, Ø The main thing holding "large" providers back from rolling out IPv6 across the board is cost ... you'll have to increase the effective costs of IPv4 to $100 per IP before you'll be at a point where the cost savings of switching to IPv6 outweigh the costs of depreciating the current IPv4 capable kit and going through natural expansion / upgrades to kit capable of IPv6 Vendors have been slow to produce kit which is IPv6 capable .. they're starting to do this, but on the whole the big players have been holding off on the $xx million capex spend until the kit they have in place has depreciated sufficiently. [cut] Whilst I agree with the majority of your points here, especially the CPE device point - it's possibly worth highlighting some of the work UK access networks have done on this.. We did a panel discussion on this topic at UKNOF (Disclaimer: that's me with the Northern Accent chairing it) which highlighted there has been significant research on v6. Can be viewed online here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I97uRcdNxDc As you've already said - the one point which came out was essentially, ipv6 adoption will really start to take hold when ipv4 runs out or is not cost effective to play the market place for it. CGN works to a certain level, but becomes difficult and expensive quickly as you scale this up - especially with certain logging requirements and so on but we aren't at a point where cost is forcing ipv6 take up. As a side note, agree with the rollout - something I'm doing at a Business Incubator network we manage. The fully managed network will all be v4/6 dual stacked, with the raw IP network being offered /56 or /60s. I expect very little take up as being quite honest, I still don't believe the consumer demand is there. Chris ________________________________ website: www.knowledgeit.co.uk | blog: www.knowledgeit.co.uk/blog | twitter: @KnowledgeITUK ________________________________ Knowledge Limited, Company Registration: 1554385 Registered Office: New Century House, Crowther Road, Washington, Tyne & Wear. NE38 0AQ Leeds Office: Viscount Court, Leeds Road, Rothwell, Leeds. LS26 0GR Tel: 0845 142 0020. Fax: 0845 142 0021 E-Mail Disclaimer: This e-mail message is intended to be received only by persons entitled to receive the confidential information it may contain. E-mail messages to clients of Knowledge IT may contain information that is confidential and legally privileged. Please do not read, copy, forward, or store this message unless you are an intended recipient of it. If you have received this message in error, please forward it to the sender and delete it completely from your computer system. Please consider the environment before printing this email.
All you’ll do by increasing the costs of IPv4 is make the smaller guys less competitive
You're not accounting the logarithmic nature of the "utility" function for IPv4. Having 1 IPv4 is insanely more satisfying than having none compared to 101 IPs instead of 100. We're rapidly approaching a situation where the smaller guys would happily give $100 for an IPv4 but they just get a straight "no". Smaller guys just want a chance to do their web startup by getting one IPv4 from their LIR and they would happily give $100 for that. Whereas getting to keep 16'000 IPs instead of 32'000 when you just need 100 of them would be something a lot of legacy businesses if it cuts their bill in half from 32 grands to 16 (assuming $1/ip -- I do believe you'll see beneficial effects kicking in at much smaller price-points). On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 5:51 PM, Jon Morby (FidoNet) <jon@fido.net> wrote:
The main thing holding “large” providers back from rolling out IPv6 across the board is cost … you’ll have to increase the effective costs of IPv4 to $100 per IP before you’ll be at a point where the cost savings of switching to IPv6 outweigh the costs of depreciating the current IPv4 capable kit and going through natural expansion / upgrades to kit capable of IPv6
Vendors have been slow to produce kit which is IPv6 capable .. they’re starting to do this, but on the whole the big players have been holding off on the $xx million capex spend until the kit they have in place has depreciated sufficiently.
Some of the bigger players here in the UK were almost at the point of rolling out kit which is v6 capable when they found that this kit also did CGNAT and rolling out CGN is easier / cheaper than rolling IPv6 “in the short term”
Then you have to factor in CPE … from Broadband (and VoIP) perspective not all kit does IPv6 yet
Rather than forcing an exponential cost increase in v4 address space, work to roll out IPv6 now and get a _competitive advantage_ against the big boys - then make hay while their accountants tell them they can’t spend money on the v6 kit.
When they finally do we might find their land grab pricing has to disappear and they start to cover the costs of the new infrastructure they’ve had to roll out ….
All you’ll do by increasing the costs of IPv4 is make the smaller guys less competitive and drive a few more out of business whilst the big boys go “oh well another 20c per user on our cost base, c’est la vie
IPv4 is dead. IPv6 is the future. Roll out IPv6 .. push the vendors to provide IPv6 compatible kit … harder I know when the big boys aren’t pushing .. but push never the less .. if enough of us small guys push hard enough then we stand a chance of getting somewhere and maybe getting a competitive advantage over the behemoth again .. for a short while
Jon
On 18 Dec 2013, at 15:17, Vlad Dascalu <vladd@beetux.com> wrote:
IP Market = resource < demand (charging won’t help) That's simply not true, it's economy 101 basic stuff: demand adjusts based on price. If the price is higher, the demand will fall until it's equal to demand.
Consider the case of large telecom that have an unique IP for every telephone line. A higher price is the only motivation that will encourage them to switch their private VOIP network to IPv6. At that higher price-point their transition will be feasible for them, why still being easily affordable by businesses which need a IPv4 for their website or other critical resources.
Resource depletion shouldn't prevent an efficient allocation of scarcity. Vlad
Dear Jon regarding IPv6 kits, the cost depends on the business model. I talked to a Comcast guy some years ago about IPv4/IPv6, and they found that the IPv6 cost was less than managing IPv4 and NAT. As said this depends if the company just sells "pure access" (i.e. no device investment) how many routers you have to change, how many CPE (if you have some) you have to upgrade etc. Anyway, this was some years ago, I don't know what Comcast is doing in these days or what other providers are doing now. What I can say is that dual stack costs nothing on the CPE side (it costs on the access and core, but I guess nowadays most of routers do IPv6) My point is very simple: I am not asking anybody to switch off IPv4 tomorrow, I am asking to large ISP/Telco/Content to provide dual stack NOW. We already have a LARGE number of devices on the market which are IPv6 capable, which will be more and more pervasive and which are IP-Vsomething hungry. I don't know the exact numbers, but with iPad, iPhone, Androids we have a lot of Ipv6 capable devices each of them wanting an IP (if connected on the mobile operator's network) and wanting to stay online much more that in the past. Differently from the CPE they are upgraded regurarly, their number is higher tha the home CPEs, the integration is "seamless" in the user experience. By the way, the customer does not care if he/she is using IPv4 or IPv6 they care if google is working, if facebook is working if youtube is working... The IPv4/IPv6 thing is good only for us, the operators the customers at 99% do not care about it. So regarding the number of "devices" I would say that the mobile market has a great potential for IPv6 deployment much more than the fixed market. The second point: who said that we must not run dual stack? Let's start running dual stack and then let's see the IPv6 traffic grow day by day. The third point: the IPv6 contents. Most of the Internet (in terms of traffic) is IPv6 ready, I mean google, youtube, facebook, etc. The rest is slowly migrating and the real reason why "it's slowly migrating" it's because large contents providers are not providing IPv6 or customers are not using it. Again, the lack of IPv6 traffic depends on the fact that the site is not available on IPv6 or that the customer is not running any dual stack. Let's start with the top 20 sites for each nation, let's deploy IPv6-dualstack in the mobile market and let's see if the IPv6 traffic is going to grow or not. Summarizing: IPv6 traffic is not growing because nobody is giving out IPv6 addresses on the terminals (e.g. mobile phones), nor moving the content on IPv6 nor doing anything on that. Even if tomorrow all my customers will be on dual stack, most of them will still "request" traffic from IPv4 networks simply because the content is not available on dual stack (except google, youtube, facebook) How to "push" people to start deploying IPv6 NOW also depends on RIPE: do not give more IPv4 addresses to large IPv4 onwers till they provide NOW dual stack. I know that RIPE cannot charge for IPv4 address space consumption but at least can say "no more IPv4 to you" to those large AS who are not deploying IPv6 (i.e. dual stack). Let's start with those companies who have mobile terminals and the content providers and let's see IPv6 grow. As I said, what I see from my point of view, is just a market push to NOT deploy IPv6 because it would break a lot of "barriers" Just my 2 Euro cents Paolo
The main thing holding “large” providers back from rolling out IPv6 across the board is cost … you’ll have to increase the effective costs of IPv4 to $100 per IP before you’ll be at a point where the cost savings of switching to IPv6 outweigh the costs of depreciating the current IPv4 capable kit and going through natural expansion / upgrades to kit capable of IPv6
Vendors have been slow to produce kit which is IPv6 capable .. they’re starting to do this, but on the whole the big players have been holding off on the $xx million capex spend until the kit they have in place has depreciated sufficiently.
Some of the bigger players here in the UK were almost at the point of rolling out kit which is v6 capable when they found that this kit also did CGNAT and rolling out CGN is easier / cheaper than rolling IPv6 “in the short term”
Then you have to factor in CPE … from Broadband (and VoIP) perspective not all kit does IPv6 yet
Rather than forcing an exponential cost increase in v4 address space, work to roll out IPv6 now and get a _competitive advantage_ against the big boys - then make hay while their accountants tell them they can’t spend money on the v6 kit.
When they finally do we might find their land grab pricing has to disappear and they start to cover the costs of the new infrastructure they’ve had to roll out ….
All you’ll do by increasing the costs of IPv4 is make the smaller guys less competitive and drive a few more out of business whilst the big boys go “oh well another 20c per user on our cost base, c’est la vie
IPv4 is dead. IPv6 is the future. Roll out IPv6 .. push the vendors to provide IPv6 compatible kit … harder I know when the big boys aren’t pushing .. but push never the less .. if enough of us small guys push hard enough then we stand a chance of getting somewhere and maybe getting a competitive advantage over the behemoth again .. for a short while
Jon
On 18 Dec 2013, at 15:17, Vlad Dascalu <vladd@beetux.com <mailto:vladd@beetux.com>> wrote:
IP Market = resource < demand (charging won’t help) That's simply not true, it's economy 101 basic stuff: demand adjusts based on price. If the price is higher, the demand will fall until it's equal to demand.
Consider the case of large telecom that have an unique IP for every telephone line. A higher price is the only motivation that will encourage them to switch their private VOIP network to IPv6. At that higher price-point their transition will be feasible for them, why still being easily affordable by businesses which need a IPv4 for their website or other critical resources.
Resource depletion shouldn't prevent an efficient allocation of scarcity. Vlad
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
-- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it
participants (4)
-
Chris Russell -
Jon Morby (FidoNet) -
Paolo Di Francesco -
Vlad Dascalu