[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-127: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension
jbates at brightok.net
Sat Jan 22 02:39:27 EST 2011
On 1/22/2011 12:06 AM, Frank Bulk wrote:
> Yes, eyeball networks benefit from this policy proposal more than content
> providers. I don't believe that eyeball networks will leverage NAT444 to
> sell "extra" IPv4 -- the breakage that accompanies NAT444 is too painful.
> And if NAT444 was so successful, what market value would that IPv4 address
> space have? It would be cheaper for those supposed buyers to implement a
1) Is it your opinion that the eyeball networks deserve to benefit from
this proposal and eat up a /10 which could be utilized by content
providers who don't get near the transition capabilities as eyeball
2) Given that eyeball networks for support reasons will likely push
their cheapest plans into NAT444 quickly (so as to support a uniform
topology), what do you believe they will do with all this extra space
gained? Others in the thread have mentioned v4 value projected to be $40
per? Many eyeball networks also sideline these days with content
services as well. Will they utilize this massive block of free IPv4 they
recover to push out the content only providers?
3) While NAT444 is painful and there is hope that many things will
utilize v6, what percentage of services do you see remaining v4, where
NAT444 ceases to be painful? For example, http works rather well with
NAT444, so the pain threshold is much higher than say... skype/p2p. I
expect skype and other p2p programs (many already do) to support ipv6
quickly to protect their business model from dealing with NAT444, while
many services which don't have breakage from NAT have no driving force
to push them quicker to IPv6. The same goes for the eyeball customers.
They are likely to quit using home routers if it means gaining IPv6
connectivity to make their xbox/skype/wow patch work (or upgrade to an
IPv6 capable device). This will v6 enable them, and then they'll just
utilize v4 for the services which haven't migrated as quickly as NAT444
doesn't break them (or the break, such as geolocation, ip specific
rules, etc are acceptable by both parties).
At this stage of the game, I'm sure it's too late to correct policies.
ARIN should have had policies in place already to help protect the
content providers over the eyeball networks, due to the unbalanced
transition tools available. Perhaps this policy is the sacrifice (we'll
give you a /10, if you'll just be quiet and not eat up more space;
accept all that extra space you'll reclaim on NAT444 and not even worry
about the 1-10% needed to do NAT444). Or perhaps implementing this
policy won't stop the flood of requests, and it will just sacrifice
another /10 to eyeballs that content providers could have used. I didn't
see anything in the policy that mandated all justifications must show
NAT444 using this /10 for the customer facing side. Without such
wording, a provider could still utilize NAT444 to justify more space,
and then turn around and utilize the /10; giving themselves a better
buffer on runout (or more of those so call $40 addresses).
For the record. I'm an eyeball network, and content I provide falls
under standard eyeball network services (and the bare minimum at that).
I don't suffer from the issues many content providers will face, but I
will see the effects when they have issues obtaining IPv4 space while my
network and many other eyeball networks free up IPv4 space through
NAT444 and are still loathe to give up claim to the space (or bank by
selling it to the content networks at premium rates). I'm all for my own
network paying the tax of sacrificing existing space for utilization in
More information about the ARIN-PPML