[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency TransferPolicyforIPv4 Addresses - Last Call

Leo Bicknell bicknell at ufp.org
Mon Jan 5 09:29:04 EST 2009


This may quickly dive into the weeds, but I wanted to reply to a couple
of points.

In a message written on Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 09:13:34AM -0000, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
> > Here's the interesting dynamic; there is almost no 
> > first-mover advantage to deploying IPv6 first.
> 
> This is not entirely true. There are now large organizations

Hence the almost.  Note that, ISP's deploying before their customers
want it is not "first mover", but rather the way it has to be done.
ISP's have to get their backbones in order, provisioning systems
in order, and so on before they can take on customers.

There are several ISP's offering IPv6 services now.  If there were
a significant first mover advantage they would be growing at a rate
far outpacing the rest of the industry as a result.  At least from
my perspective I don't see that.

> > However, beyond that it doesn't get you 
> > extra revenue, and may make you purchase equipment you would 
> > not otherwise purchase, run newer software with more bugs, etc.
> 
> Existing network hardware (servers and routers) has had IPv6
> support for years now. Nobody is seriously suggesting that there
> is a need to buy new equipment beyond the normal technology
> refresh cycle. As for software, I don't believe that there is

Actually, I am, but not in the way you're thinking (I believe).

Will a backbone provider need to buy significant amounts of new
hardware?  I doubt it.  Will enterprises and the like have to buy
significant amounts of new hardware, quite likely.

While there are plenty of 2501's out there terminating T1's for low
bandwidth apps (e.g. POS) that might need to be forklifted to get
the ram, flash, and heft to run new code the more interesting case
to me is things like 2800's lacking ram and flash.  The act of
upgrading a box at a remote office with no qualified remote hands
is probably more painful than just swapping out a backbone box in
a data center.

So while the hardware may be simple (ram, flash, disk) the act of
installing it may be hugely complicated.  Let's also not forget things
like the cable co's, where they need to upgrade to DOCSIS 3.0, which
probably means new hardware.

So there's plenty of hardware that needs to be replaced/upgraded;
it's just further to the edge than we normally discuss.  Fortunately,
the edge is typically easier, it can be done in smaller increments.

> > We see ISP's state this over and over, the customers do not 
> > want it, so we're not doing it.
> 
> But when the customers do start asking for it, will these ISPs
> be ready with a tested service, or will they start losing those
> customers to their competition?

This to me is the only entertaining part of IPv6.  There is asbolutely
a game of chicken going on.  Which ISP will move first, and how
agressively will they move their customers, and how many problems
will they have.  Some ISP's will win big, some will loose big.  Some are
going to deploy a fiscal year too late and miss the boat, some a year
early and blow capital they could have better used on something else.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090105/78eb302d/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list