[arin-ppml] The annual limit on total maintenance fees for legacy number resources under the ARIN fee schedule

[hostmaster at uneedus.com]

Honestly, the simple adoption of IPv6 in CPE provided by major ISP's, as 
well as the already in place adoption of IPv6 in major operating systems, 
along with the adding of AAAA records by many of the top destinations on 
the internet has done more to drive traffic to travel via IPv6 than any 
other single factor.

Comcast started a lot of this, simply because their private network space 
use exceeded the amount available.  Other than the IPv4 addresses on their 
CPE, I think that 99% of their network is already IPv6 only, especially 
their internal assets like set top boxes.  Others like Charter and AT&T 
have recently added IPv6 to their CPE as well.

On the other side of the connection, major destinations like Google, 
Microsoft and even Netflix have added AAAA's to their network, allowing 
all this recent CPE to start to connect most of their traffic via IPv6.

The "Silent Upgrade" is what is currently driving the traffic shift toward 
IPv6 on a lot of networks.  Most customers do not care or know what 
protocol is delivering their bits, they just want them to arrive.

Eventually market forces, especially in places with shortages of IPv4 
addresses and CGnat will eventually get operators to charge extra for 
access to IPv4, because of the extra cost of CGnat and CALEA logging 
costs. DOCSYS 3+ require IPv6 as well as 4G+ mobile networks, which will 
also push more traffic toward IPv6.  These factors also tend to make IPv6 
faster for these users due to lack of CGnat, which will further drive more 
content providers to provide native IPv6 for speed reasons.

I think we will eventually get to an IPv6 dominant network, but I am sure 
also it will not happen until well after my retirement.

Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.


On Fri, 15 Apr 2022, Joe Maimon wrote:

>
>
> hostmaster at uneedus.com wrote:
>> .
>> 
>> If we could just get the total a bit higher, we might reach a tipping point 
>> that would drive universal IPv6 adoption.  However I do believe that there 
>> are forces that are actively working against IPv6 adoption, because it is a 
>> threat to their internet dominance, as well as the money these players have 
>> poured into buying IPv4 space.
>> 
>> Widespread adoption of IPv6 WILL crash the value of those IPv4 investments. 
>> What is good for the community, which is a universal network with plenty of 
>> address space available to everyone goes against the position of others 
>> that would like to turn the internet back into a one way service like 
>> Compuserve or AOL.
>> 
>
> I dont think we have to go to the malevolent and nebulous for answers when 
> the mundane and rational suffice well enough.
>
> IPv6 cost benefit analysis is not weighted very highly towards IPv6 for far 
> too many, for far too long, even with altruism factored in. Its a wonder its 
> gotten this far.
>
> I dont believe the behavior and logic pattern you are describing can possibly 
> be common enough or a large enough motivating factor to be worthy of any real 
> world focus. At best a handful of inconsequential folk may have indulged in 
> some fantasy musing over it before reality asserted itself.
>
> For instance, this motivation requires a great deal of hard to picture high 
> level coordination to maximize its success, or otherwise its a wager that can 
> leave you on the losing side of a tipping point.
>
> As a result, you would have to perform an entire IPv6 deployment that was 
> flag day light switch ready to guard against that outcome. And then leave it 
> off, waiting and bit-rotting while your evil plans slowly matured into 
> fruition -- maybe. So all the costs, none of the gain, all the risks, slight 
> potential of some short term reward eventually.
>
> Yeah, no.
>
> Joe
>