[arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Maimon [mailto:jmaimon at chl.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 12:05 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: 'Scott Beuker'; 'ARIN PPML'
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >
> >
> > I'll bet you a beer that it will be the smaller ISP's who 
> make native 
> > IPv6 available to their residential customers over broadband BEFORE 
> > larger ISPs do.
> >
> > Ted
> >
> >
> >   
> Available as in by request or as pilot or even fully dual 
> homed customer base with guipv4?
> 
> Likely.
> 
> As in you can have /32v4 and a whole /64v6 in response to 
> customer request for larger?
> 
> Unlikely.
> 

Why not?  If there's one thing that should be clear, IPv6 does
not have practical utilization limits - there's more IPv6 numbers
than every MAC address that can ever be assigned, so as long as
the small ISP can handle the bandwidth desired, what purpose would
be served by ARIN denying them a justifyable request for more IPv6?

> As in you can have rfc1918 v4 and this /64v6? (It is easier 
> for small orgs to deploy nat/pat)
> 

Well, that's getting right back into the IPv4 discussion.

> Only if they have to because they need to stop assigning 
> guipv4. And if it turns out that small ISP's need to go this 
> route before larger ones, that is clearly inequitable.
> 
> When a small ISP turns down requests for globally unique ipv4 
> in favor of handing out ipv6, the smaller ISP is going to 
> lose the customer to the larger ISP.
>

IF the larger ISP has G.U. IPv4 available.
 
> And remember, guipv4 for customers have always been more 
> available and cheaper for large organization than for small, 
> witness the 500 times price per address difference between 
> the smallest and largest allocations, add to that larger 
> scale opportunities for scavenging and recycling, add to that 
> the ability to pony up serious cash on any potential ip 
> market, or to even just buy out underutilized small ISP's.
> 

Cheaper, absolutely.  More available in the past?  That even
I would disagree with.  ARIN right now operates on a need-based
assignment scheme for -everyone-, you show the need, you get the
IP numbers.  That will only change after IPv4-runout.  And in
the future, post IPv4-runout, I would agree the large orgs will
have more ability to assign IPv4

> As such my conclusion is post IANA runout, large orgs will be 
> able to provide ipv4 --by (paid)request at least-- far longer 
> than smaller organizations.
> 

Ironically, the existence of NAT has made the need for G.U. IPv4
less important than the need for G.U. IPv6.

If you're a customer with 200 nodes on your network and you need
IPv4 you can always use translation to make as much as you want for
yourself.
You might need a handful of G.U. IPv4, but you don't really -need-
G.U. IPv4 on your 200 nodes  (well, most orgs won't)

If you need IPv6 then you will need G.U. IPv6 for all your nodes.

> I am not worried about the large ISP's. Where they go, the 
> smaller ones can follow, along with their customers. It wont 
> work the other way.
>

Amen to that!

Ted