[arin-ppml] Suggestion: charging for IPv4 space

Tue Oct 21 19:06:02 EDT 2008

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ 
> Crepin-Leblond
> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 3:18 PM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Suggestion: charging for IPv4 space
> 
> 
> All:
> 
> Although I am not representing any registry and although this 
> is my first post here, I have been reading debates on this 
> mailing list for a little while and I can clearly see that 
> the issue of IPv4 to IPv6 transition strikes quite a few 
> chords, so I think that this is the right forum to post into. 
> I am consulting each RIR discussion list separately, so sorry 
> for the cross-posting, but I feel it is important to take 
> this issue up separately in each region of the world.
> 
> Through discussions I've had with dozens of people (some of 
> whom may be reading this message), I have noticed the following:
> 
> - currently, neither IPv4 nor IPv6 address delegation are 
> directly linked to any kind of significant recurent *annual* fee;
> - some ISPs are considering introducing IPv6 connectivity to 
> customers *for a premium* rather than IPv4 (yes, sadly, it's true);
> - we've had 10+ years of slogan "we are running out of IPv4 
> addresses" and this has not "hit the spot" to get a 
> transitional process going;
> - sadly, there is a lack of IPv6 "killer ap" to promote the 
> use of IPv6 over IPv4;
> - availability of several IPv6 "islands" exist on the 
> Internet, with very poor "trans-island" connectivity 
> (although I am told that this is s-l-o-w-l-y improving - and 
> that's good news);
> - a lot of stigmas are associated with IPv6 (our customers do 
> not request it; there is no demand; etc.)
> 
> Clearly, we could all go on talking for another 10 years 
> about IPv6. But we don't have 10 years. So what's the hurdle?
> 
> Let's be fair, folks, it all boils down to a question of *money*.
> 
> v4 to v6 transition is seen as an expensive exercise. Darn, 
> with hardware, software & training, transition is expensive! 
> Had it been cheap, we wouldn't be in the *utter mess* that we 
> are in today because it would have been a natural thing to do.
> 

It is cheaper to go pee out the window into the flowerbed
instead of using the flush toilet down the hall, that doesen't
mean we go do it.  Well, most of us don't.

There's a lot of other cheap things we don't do just because they
are cheap.  Even some we don't that we should do.

Cost is not the main reason we haven't switched.  Seriously!

> So we are going to run out of "greenfield IPv4" addresses by, 
> say, 25 Dec 2010. Or earlier. Or later. Whatever. What we 
> know is that we'll run out. <Boom>.
> 
> IPv4 addresses will become a limited commodity. Speculators 
> are going to step in, and they are likely to do it at a 
> shockingly fast speed. (eg. Cantel & Siegel's Green Card 
> Lottery announced mass spamming; the sex.com case announced 
> the worth of domain names).
> 
> My suggestion (and others here, namely Ted and Ron have 
> already touched 
> on the idea) is therefore to engage a study of the following 
> "positive 
> discrimination" proposal:
> 
> 1. Introducing a *recurrent annual* cost-element to IPv4 
> addresses, the reason behind it being: making v6 cheaper to 
> run than v4. This could be a small cost to start with, 
> increasing significantly but steadily along a scale for 
> the next few years.

We already have that:

http://www.arin.net/billing/fee_schedule.html#both

"...Organizations holding direct allocations of both IPv4 and IPv6 address
space from ARIN under a single Org ID only pay the larger of the two
annual subscription renewal fees..."

NAT also creates a HUGE incentive for orgs to renumber what
IPv4 they can into private IP space.

For myself I do not understand why all of these academic
users keep throwing up examples of student dormotories
that chew up vast blocks of IPv4.  Why does ANY student that
is getting Internet connectivity for free from the college
expect to get a public IPv4 number?

> This should act more as a *deterrent* for the use of IPv4 in 
> the future than as a "tax" to be paid now. Heck, it might 
> even start cleaning up IPv4 space and giving us more time to 
> transit to v6 through the release of more IPv4 space! Those 
> effects are hard to predict.
> 
> 2. Building a v4 to v6 neutral & non-for-profit transition 
> fund from the 
> IPv4 revenue.
> This fund could finance/subsidise the following:
> a. the initial bridging of the IPv6 islands until those would 
> be able to fly commercially b. IPv6 tech training c. any 
> other project that would trigger/help v4 to v6 transition
> 

b. and c. we already do.  Or rather, ARIN already does.  They
don't separately break out an allocation from their fees for
this but it is effectively what is going on.

a. is a whole different story.  My employer is ALREADY paying
my upstreams for bandwidth, and they should be using some of
that money to roll out IPv6.  If I am unsatisfied with their
performance in rolling out IPv6 then I'll have my employer stop
paying them and go pay someone else.  If enough other people
thought this way then there wouldn't be an IPv6 problem.

> If we do not make IPv6 more interesting financially, we risk 
> failure to transit smoothly. This will cause a *much greater 
> problem* than Domain speculation since IP addressing 
> constitutes the very fabric of the Internet:
> 
> 1. Panic in operators who might then try and grab as much v4 
> space as possible, thus compounding the problem; 2. Panic 
> transition from v4 to v6 which will completely forego the 
> transition testing period which Peter Kirstein (UCL London) 
> has mentioned many times, thus introducing instability in the 
> Internet; 3. A lack of fully qualified technicians & 
> engineers to run IPv6 networks; 4. A "free" market for IPv4 
> addresses where prices quickly spiral out of control.
> 
> I am trying to look for a solution which will ease the shock 
> by instead smoothly raising prices.

Repeat the following mantra:

If I am unsatisfied with their
performance in rolling out IPv6 then I'll have my employer stop
paying them and go pay someone else.

EDUCATION and EMPOWERMENT is the only answer.

We need to identify the people in the orgs that are the decision
makers, educate them on the upcoming IPv4 runout, and they
need to complain to who they are paying for connectivity to 
get to work on IPv6.

> A totally unregulated 
> increase is to be feared. The rate of increase might have a 
> greater impact than the price itself - see oil prices if 
> you're not convinced: we can "survive" with oil at $140 a 
> barrel, but we are hurt by the price going quickly from $70 a 
> barrel to $140. It messes the world's economy up because it 
> changes the balance at once in all of our business models.
> 
> I don't believe in self-regulation by the market - it opens 
> itself to serious abuse, in the same way Wall Street bankers 
> abused the system and look where this led us?
> 
> IPv4 is a *serious* show-stopper wrt the Internet's future 
> development. The Internet we are seeing today is still 
> primarily accessed by computers 
> but tomorrow, and tomorrow isn't far away, we're going to see 
> increased 
> use by mobile devices. There are also now several commercial products 
> out there to access your home PC remotely. Next on the tab is 
> the concept 
> of having a home multimedia server that can be accessed remotely. And 
> then we fall into consumer electronics - new TVs are now all 
> digital-enabled 
> & the rest of the "home entertainment" system is quickly 
> becoming all digital. 
> The "young generations" do not know CDs - their music travels 
> on digital 
> music players & laptops. And then comes the "Network of things" where 
> sensors will talk to each other. This is just about to hit 
> us, and our dinosaur 
> IPv4 will be as suited to this as the steam engine is to the 
> modern hydrid car. 
> IPv6 will enable us to have cheap devices all connected to 
> the Internet.
> 
> With instability creeping in the system, we risk several high 
> profile technical failures with repercussions not dissimilar 
> to the current failures in the banking sector. Do we really want this?
> 
> I shall be going to the ICANN Cairo conference and would be happy to 
> discuss these matters in person. Come on, let's do something 
> about this 
> impending doom. I've lived the DOTCOM boom years and met with 
> teenagers who told me they were going to conquer the world - 
> *and they did*. 
> IPv6 has the ability to infuse a breath of life in 
> Internetting & the Internet 
> Economy worldwide - on every continent. Seize the day. Don't 
> wait until someone tells you that you've failed.
> 
> Sorry for the length of the message & thanks for reading,
> 

I think your being very colorful with the metaphors.  I also think
you would be excellent at identifying the people in the orgs that
are the decision makers, educating them on the upcoming IPv4 runout,
and telling them to complain to who they are paying for connectivity to 
get to work on IPv6.

This is your mission Oliver, should you decide to accept it! ;-)

Ted