[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Last Minute Assistance for Small ISPs

[michael.dillon at bt.com]

> It is pretty clear from posts on this list and elsewhere that 
> it is going to take a few years after ARIN assigns the last 
> IPv4 address for all major carriers to have native IPv6 
> offerings.  IPv4 is going to have to get scarce and expensive 
> before IPv6 becomes an issue for a lot of people.

Given that most major carriers already have IPv6 running in their
labs and have limited deployments with selected customers, I don't
see why you are so pessimistic. Like it or not, the large ISPs
see IPv6 deployment and IPv4 runout as being intertwined events
and that is why there will not be significant mass deployment
of IPv6 until at least the IANA runout event.

> I agree that if an ISP right now is not pressuring their 
> upstream for native IPv6 and that if their upstream isn't 
> natively running IPv6 that both of them are probably in the 
> "poorly run businesses with lazy managers" category.

There definitely should be some dialog between smaller ISPs
and their upstreams, not just nagging the poor sales rep who
can only sell what is in the official catalog. IPv6 deployment
is a once in a lifetime network transition that demands special
treatment, and that includes carriers providing a special IPv6
contact point for their customers which are also working on IPv6.

> I think that the ARIN community would like to see both PaBell 
> and Podunk to go to IPv6.

I think that the ARIN community doesn't care one way or the other.
Maybe Podunk is a market that can live with IPv4 long after IPv6
is the standard Internet protocol. We are not all-knowing and cannot
make that determination. Maybe Joe Hotshot college grad will launch
a new ISP in Michigan and wipe out the market share of both Podunk
ISP and PaBell.

> if Podunk seriously challenges PaBell by taking many 
> customers away from them, PaBell will merely react by raising 
> prices on the IPv4 they have assigned to Podunk, pushing them 
> out of business.

And opening a gap in the market for Joe Hotshot. Not to mention
antitrust lawsuits.

> Now, you can argue that PaBell could also do this by jacking 
> up connectivity rates.  But, they can't do this without 
> running afoul of restraint of trade unless they also jack up 
> connectivity rates for all their other customers at the same 
> time - which defeats the purpose since that won't cause 
> customers to migrate back to PaBell from Podunk.  That is why 
> PaBell would most likely choose to attack Podunk through fees 
> on IPv4.

A fee on IPv4 usage is a component of the connectivity rate and 
I doubt that anyone can avoid a restraint of trade lawsuit this way.

--Michael Dillon