[ppml] IPv6>>32

[Owen DeLong]

--On Thursday, May 12, 2005 8:43 AM -0400 Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org>
wrote:

> In a message written on Thu, May 12, 2005 at 01:19:51AM -0700, Owen
> DeLong wrote:
>> Verizon gets away with this in IPv4 because there is a perceived
>> scarcity of addresses, and, people will let them get away with it
>> as a result.
> 
> I don't think it's a perceived scarcity of addresses, as I don't
> think Joe Average, or even your average small business network admin
> has any idea.
> 
True... It's not perception on the part of the customer.  It's perception
on the part of Verizon's competitors.  If VZ competitors felt that they
could get away with handing every customer a /24, do you really think that
VZs address policy would continue?

> The problem is, they have a near-monopoly on a number of services.
> Indeed, with their fiber offering it's worse as in some places they
> are cutting copper as the fiber is installed, and the fiber is not
> subject to UNE's yet.  In the end, it's the same reason you pay $8
> for a beer, and $5 for a hot dog at a sporting event.  Neither beer
> nor hot dogs are in short supply, but the owners of the venue have
> artificially created scarcity by limiting the food vendors and what
> you can bring in.  I firmly expect the same behavior from providers
> who have basically been trying to enforce lock-in their entire
> history.
> 
Yep...  However, I suspect any such situation is temporary in nature
and will be short-lived.

> Recent regulations are not helping matters, making it easier for
> iLECs and Cable Providers to insure that no competitive offerings
> exist to the home.
> 
Yes... The previous and current FCC chairs are definitely either ignorant
or working from an agenda contrary to the public good.  Possibly both.

> I'm still optimistic.  I think we'll get a /64 to the home.  It's
> mainly based around an assumption that people will want autoconfiguration
> to work, so a /64 will be required.  I think the hopes of a /48 on
> "home" service are slim to none though, as the Verizon's of the
> world are going to first wonder why you need more than a /64, but
> more importantly if they do give it to you it will be for a cost
> as an additional revenue stream.  Those who need multiple subnets
> will find NAT, or subdividing the /64 much cheaper options.
> 
Well... I'm optimistic, too.  I think I'll have no trouble getting a /48
for my home when the time comes, and, if I really wanted it, I could
probably
manage a /32.  However, if I can subnet it, a /64 will be quite sufficient
for my needs. :-)

My point is that the current revenue model of charging more for static or
multiple IP addresses will crumble when faced with competition that
does not have to.  Under IPv6, if it ever catches up to the v4 feature
set enough to gain widespread acceptance, I think that will happen.

Owen


-- 
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20050512/0f3d9074/attachment.sig>