[arin-ppml] IPv6 /32 minimum for extra-small ISP

[Owen DeLong]

On Apr 26, 2010, at 1:46 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> 
> 
> On 4/26/2010 11:39 AM, Chris Engel wrote:
>> 
>> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> 
>>> Interesting how costs have been bandied about, a few days ago it
>>> was $2250 now it's $1250.
>>> 
>>> Please tell me the name of an employer where any employee who is
>>> NOT a salesman can go to his or her boss and say "Can I go spend a
>>> thousand bucks on something that has no justification for
>>> existence other than we might need it sometime in the future?"
>> 
>> 
>> Ted,
>> 
>> I think you basicaly described most types of insurance that
>> businesses carry.
> 
> That isn't a good analogy.
> 
> The proper analogous statement would be the employee who told their boss they needed to spend a thousand bucks on something that has no justification for existence other than we might need it sometime in the future, OTHERWISE if we didn't send the money we could be sued if we
> did need it.
> 
> That's the difference between buying insurance and buying IPV6
> in a nutshell - at the current time, of course.
> 
Ted,

We can agree to disagree about this, but, frankly, I think that
the insurance analogy is spot on.

If you deploy IPv6, then, you have insured that your operations
can continue in a world where there are IPv6-only hosts trying
to reach your services or where your clients are trying to reach
IPv6-only services.  If you do not deploy IPv6, then, you are taking
significant risks that your business continuity on the internet may
be interrupted in a post IPv4-depletion scenario.

Since the reason most businesses purchase insurance is to be
able to ensure their business continuity in the face of a sudden
change (fire, flood, etc.), I think that deploying IPv6 to ensure
continued business on the internet after IPv4 depletion is a
very similar cost justification.

>> I can't speak for  ISP's but in the Enterprise
>> world 1-2K isn't going to even be a blip on the radar screen as far
>> as the real costs of IPv6 (assuming an Enterprise would even go
>> through ARIN rather then thier ISP for space).
> 
> Right, of course the debate wouldn't affect Enterprises anyway
> because they aren't minimal users of IPv4.  (we would assume)
> 
For most enterprises, the IPv6 cost would be a one-time initial
fee of $1,250 and they would then pay $100/year thereafter,
which, if they had direct IPv4 resources or an ASN would be
the same $100/year they are already paying.

>> The real costs will
>> come in man-hours of planning, deployment, training, support and
>> skill building, HW/SW compatability issues, compliance issues, lost
>> business and broken applications. As far as costs...those are the
>> real killers for IPv6 (IMO).
>> 
> 
> Looking at IPv6 from a purely financial perspective what the
> enterprise is ultimately going to come up against is that you
> are definitely going to lose customers if you have no IP to
> give them, and you may lose customers if you have IP to give
> them but it's only IPv6.
> 
By enterprise above, I assume from context you mean end-users
as was described earlier.

End users shouldn't be giving IP addresses to their customers,
so, the above paragraph doesn't make sense to me.  If you mean
ISPs rather than End users, then, the above paragraph sort of
makes sense, but, it's unclear to me how you expect to continue
to have IPv4 addresses to give customers throughout 2012,
or, especially beyond that date.

> And of course since the actual IPv4 "runout" is going to vary
> from company to company, the companies with the most money
> who can afford to buy IPv4 off the transfer market, will have
> a competitive advantage - as long as the transfer market can
> continue to fill IPv4 orders.
> 
Perhaps, perhaps not.  I expect one of two things will happen with
the alleged transfer market...

1.	There will be little to no supply available at any price, or, it
	will be at such extremely high prices that there will be very
	few who can afford to buy it.  In this case, competitive advantage
	is only an advantage if you can make enough money off of
	your subscribers to cover the high cost of address acquisition.

or

2.	The address transfer market will be vibrant, indeed, and the
	IPv4 routing table will rapidly grow to a completely unworkable
	size causing fragmentation, discontinuity, and damage to the
	IPv4 internet, inevitably leading to the rapid deployment of
	IPv6 just for the sake of restoring global reachability.

In either case, what is likely to happen is that the IPv4 transfer
market will create strong financial and/or technical incentives
to move to increase the speed of a move towards IPv6.

Owen
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20100426/8baa1a9b/attachment.htm>