[ppml] IPv6>>32

[David Conrad]

[Speaking only as myself, not as an ARIN board member nor an employee  
of Nominum]

Tony,

On May 11, 2005, at 3:24 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
>> Perhaps we should have 3 buckets.  The first would be a /56, the
>> second a /48, and the third, a /40.  Just for fun, let's call them
>> class C, B, and A respectively...  (ironic half :-))
> That analogy has invalid hidden assumptions.

That's part of the reason for the half :-).  The serious half is that  
breaking out on octets might be an acceptable compromise (at least  
for some).  Or maybe not.

> The IPv4 Class A,B,C addresses
> were PI space randomly assigned. What we are talking about here is a
> consistent bucket size such that subscribers can move between existing
> provider aggregates without having to rebuild their network from  
> scratch.

Perhaps you have more information than I, but I am unsure how many  
ISPs would require new customers to renumber into a smaller IPv6  
block as a condition for service.  I have to admit I suspect the  
number would approach zero as more ISPs start offering IPv6.

In any event, couldn't this be easily handled by an RIR policy that  
says you always get at least as much address space as you already  
have when you switch providers?

> The perceived 'unfair' distribution of the IPv4 space is the reason  
> that
> governments will not allow the market in address space trading to  
> develop.

Well, I suspect a market already exists, although all I have is  
anecdotal evidence to date so I can't prove it.  I also suspect some  
governments may actually want to encourage a market as it can be seen  
as a pragmatic way in which the perceived or actual unfairness can be  
remedied.  However, this is just speculation, at least until the pool  
of unallocated IPv4 prefixes becomes smaller.

(To be clear, I am not trying to suggest address markets, black,  
gray, or white, are good or bad.  I just figure they are inevitable  
as the IPv4 unallocated pool decreases and the unannounced but  
announceable pool of addresses remains proportionally the same as it  
is today.)

> Complex work around approaches have their value, but when it is  
> cheaper to
> operate an IPv6 application than the comparable nat hack version  
> there will
> be no contest as cheaper will win out.

I fully agree.  The question is, cheaper for whom?  My personal  
feeling is that the vast majority of Internet users simply don't care  
how they get to the sites they want to go to, they just want to get  
there.  It doesn't matter to them if they are NAT'd or if they use  
IPv6.  Most of the costs that you mention are not typically direct  
costs felt by the Internet user, rather they are costs that are  
hidden in software, hardware, or infrastructure purchases.

Until IPv6 provides a clear, unambiguous, and non-techno-geek  
justification to Internet users why it helps them do what they want  
to do, I think the amount of address space someone gets is the least  
of the IPv6's deployment impediments.

But maybe that's just me.

Rgds,
-drc
[Speaking only as myself, not as an ARIN board member nor an employee  
of Nominum]