[ppml] rubber/road

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Stephen Sprunk [mailto:stephen at sprunk.org]
>Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 4:26 PM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt; Jeroen Massar; Randy Bush
>Cc: Public Policy Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [ppml] rubber/road
>
>
>Thus spake "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm at ipinc.net>
>>>The amount that is the most of either your IPv4 or the IPv6 one.
>>>See a couple of days back where somebody disclosed that.
>>
>> In 2 years a policy could be submitted and approved that would
>> radically raise prices on the IPv6 block and require you to pay
>> for both blocks.
>
>Fees are decided by the Board and the members, not policy.
>
>Reportedly, the waiver is being replaced with (what appears to be) a
>permanent directive that folks will pay the greater of their v4
>and v6 fees,
>not both.  That has the effect, for the forseeable future, that everyone
>will get v6 free just by asking for it.
>
>Obviously, nobody can predict what IPv6 fees will look like several years
>from now, just like we can't predict what IPv4 fees will look like; it's a
>safe bet that v6 will stay cheaper than v4, though, particularly after v4
>exhaustion hits.
>

I assume you know this depends on the assumption that all non-paying IPv4
legacy holders will start paying the RIRs for IPv6 allocations in that
way we can spread the costs around more.

If that was not the case for some reason, then it would be impossible for
v6 to stay cheaper than v4, unless that is, the RIR's costs for niceties
like heat, light, office space, labor, etc. were to somehow decrease.

Nobody will pay for v4 once v6 has taken hold, in that case then v6
prices must rise unless cost to administrate numbering goes down, somehow.

>> As long as both allocations (IPv4 and IPv6) are separate, the
>> fear of getting jacked over in the future is a real possibility.
>
>That's up to the members, and the easiest way to prevent being
>"jacked over"
>is to become a member and vote accordingly.  Given the Board's recent
>resolution, though, it's hard to imagine they'll "jack" people
>adoptiong v6;
>that's contrary to the community's interests.

For right now, because we want IPv6 takeup.  But, once everyone has
taken IPv6 up, then we will want to continue to fund the administration
of IP addresses, eh?  At that time it will be in our interests to
do so, and obtain funding for it, eh?

Or is there some magic feature about IPv6 I have missed that makes it
a lot cheaper to administer, once everyone has switched over to it?

Ted