[arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?

[Lee Howard]

>________________________________
> From: Jesse D. Geddis <jesse at la-broadband.com>
>To: Mike A. Salim <msalim at localweb.com> 
>Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net" <arin-discuss at arin.net> 
>Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 12:58 PM
>Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?
> 
>
>The vast majority of the people on this list subsidise those 73 orgs in x-large by encouraging policies and fees put yourself on weaker footing. Maybe some of you don't understand the sheer scale you are kneecapping yourselves at. 
>
>
Or maybe they do understand, and simply disagree with you.  



AT&T has Well over 32 million friggin IPs. Does anyone on this list honestly believe att has done a stellar job on IPv6? 
>
>
Yes, absolutely stellar.  According to http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/ they have 8.26% of users reaching IPv6-enabled web sites over IPv6.  They have more IPv6 users than anyone else in the world.  I seem to recall that they have 34 million Internet customers, so they have at least 2.8 million IPv6 customers.  In practice, it may be more like 25-30% of their users have IPv6, but it isn't being used because of Apple's Happy Eyeballs implementation, possibly in combination with 6rd, or content providers' slow IPv6 networks.

If you meet someone from AT&T, you should shake their hand and congratulate them on their IPv6 rollout, and thank them for leading the way.




>Or with IPv4 for that matter? They are paying _at_most_ $0.0005 an IP address while someone in small is paying $0.61 an IP. Are you friggin joking me?
>
>
I see that you are getting upset.  That will not make your argument more convincing.
It sounds as if you are convinced that per-address pricing is the only fair way to set fees.  That does not seem to be the consensus.

Lee
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20130416/a34aea92/attachment.html>