[arin-ppml] Bootstrapping new entrants after IPv4 exhaustion

[Serge Paquin]

Well I've only had my ipv4 space for 2 or 3 years now, but in my case we are an ISP, co-location facility and hosting provider.

If we didn't have ipv4 space and could only be ipv6 I wouldn't have any business,  or we'd have to beg our upsteams to allocate us ipv4 space and we'd at their mercy as far as pricing. 

At the current point of ipv6 uptake I can't see how any business model on ipv6 only could survive if your network is big enough that you need direct allocation.  You just wouldn't have enough visibility only single stacked ipv6 at this point.

-----Original Message-----
From: mcr at sandelman.ca [mailto:mcr at sandelman.ca] 
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 10:52 AM
To: Serge Paquin
Cc: ARIN-PPML List
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Bootstrapping new entrants after IPv4 exhaustion


Serge  Paquin <serge at skycomp.ca> wrote:
    > I agree in principal, but that means new entrants can't really conduct
    > business because ipv6 visibility isn't to a level that your connection
    > is actually useful if you were only ipv6.

I disagree strongly.
You'd need to tell me specifically what the business plan of the new entrant is, but I think that if you think IPv6 first, many things are possible.

    > Refusing ipv4 to a new entrant makes it basically impossible to start a
    > new ISP/Hosting company business.  Will make existing orgs not want to
    > roll out ipv6 as fast so as to somewhat block new entrants and
    > competition.  At least that's how I see it.

They are doing that right now in a large variety of ways (and we live under the same duopoly, fat with IPv4 and no visible IPv6 deployment to the edges)

Not having IPv4 space is not the only way the screw new entrants.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [
]     mcr at sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [