[arin-ppml] IPv4 Depletion as an ARIN policy concern

[Owen DeLong]

>
>
> IF they even know the difference between IPv4 and IPv6. They are  
> thinking in
> terms of, "how can I delay our investment in this IPv6 thing as long  
> as
> possible because it's cash out the door for which I can't see an  
> incremental
> benefit in revenue?" The only thing that is combating *that* delay  
> tactic is
> technical people like me spreading FUD by citing potential lost  
> revenue for
> customers who leave us because we can't offer IPv6, and inability to  
> service
> existing customers when we run out of IPv4 addresses.

Small nit here... FUD stands for Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt and is  
usually used
in the context of creating false fears, unwarranted uncertainty, and  
unreasonable
doubt, such as the fear tactics commonly used by politicians.

All of the things you just mentioned about IPv6 are 100% real and will  
happen.
I can't say for sure whether it's going to happen in 2 years, 3 years,  
or 5 years,
or somewhere in between, but, within 5 years, it will happen.

An organization that large CANNOT reinvent their network in 2 years,  
and, 3 years
is pretty aggressive.  As such, given the current status, I'd say it's  
very important
to start working on IPv6 NOW to avoid those consequences in that time  
frame
because waiting another quarter is placing you at risk of being an  
additional
quarter behind when it does hit.
>
> [WDJ] Assuming you're right and the CTO of the organization is a  
> moron and
> doesn't know IPv4 is coming and hasn't filled the rest of the C- 
> level people
> in on the potential benefit of being an OA (Original Allocator) the  
> point is
> still moot.  When IANA hands out the last /8s, it's going to be  
> worldwide
> news and they're going to catch on really quickly.  Furthermore,  
> it's not
> really about number of subscribers, it's about number of dollars in  
> the bank
> account.  I reckon they don't care how many customers (within  
> reason) it
> takes to make the maximum return on investment.  Making customers  
> happy and
> giving them services they need is only as important as the profit is  
> high.
>
That's a really cynical approach to business.  It may be popular in  
todays
10-Q driven world, but, I don't work for an organization that views its
customers with such contempt, and, I can't imagine it would be very  
pleasant
to do so. (Although my friends who work at M$ say it is).

>
> And let's be realistic here, the reason that those companies have  
> large IP
> allocations is that they have been doing something that qualifies as a
> justified use of addresses under ARIN policy, and their business model
> expects them to continue growing if they are successful. They have  
> IPv6
> plans because they're going to be in bad shape *when* they run out  
> of IPv4.
> It's not in their economic best interest to drag their feet on IPv4  
> if it
> means that IPv6 is harder for them to use because it isn't widely  
> deployed,
> and therefore they are interfering with their primary business  
> because their
> users aren't happy or they can't sell to any new ones. No amount of  
> driving
> up the theoretical value of IPv4 assets will compensate for no  
> longer having
> a customer base.
>
That's a much smarter view of the world.

> [WDJ] Sometimes you don't have to expand to make more money.  
> Sometimes you
> just raise the price.
>
Given the amount of low-priced IPv6 available and the number of  
content providers
who now have public IPv6 deployment plans as well as the number that  
have
existing IPv6 service availability, I think that's going to be a hard  
sell in the competitive
market that will exist at the time.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20091023/02786782/attachment.htm>