<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Apr 26, 2010, at 1:46 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div><br><br>On 4/26/2010 11:39 AM, Chris Engel wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Interesting how costs have been bandied about, a few days ago it<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">was $2250 now it's $1250.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Please tell me the name of an employer where any employee who is<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">NOT a salesman can go to his or her boss and say "Can I go spend a<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">thousand bucks on something that has no justification for<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">existence other than we might need it sometime in the future?"<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Ted,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I think you basicaly described most types of insurance that<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">businesses carry.<br></blockquote><br>That isn't a good analogy.<br><br>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<br>did need it.<br><br>That's the difference between buying insurance and buying IPV6<br>in a nutshell - at the current time, of course.<br><br></div></blockquote>Ted,</div><div><br></div><div>We can agree to disagree about this, but, frankly, I think that</div><div>the insurance analogy is spot on.</div><div><br></div><div>If you deploy IPv6, then, you have insured that your operations</div><div>can continue in a world where there are IPv6-only hosts trying</div><div>to reach your services or where your clients are trying to reach</div><div>IPv6-only services. If you do not deploy IPv6, then, you are taking</div><div>significant risks that your business continuity on the internet may</div><div>be interrupted in a post IPv4-depletion scenario.</div><div><br></div><div>Since the reason most businesses purchase insurance is to be</div><div>able to ensure their business continuity in the face of a sudden</div><div>change (fire, flood, etc.), I think that deploying IPv6 to ensure</div><div>continued business on the internet after IPv4 depletion is a</div><div>very similar cost justification.</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite">I can't speak for ISP's but in the Enterprise<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">world 1-2K isn't going to even be a blip on the radar screen as far<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">as the real costs of IPv6 (assuming an Enterprise would even go<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">through ARIN rather then thier ISP for space).<br></blockquote><br>Right, of course the debate wouldn't affect Enterprises anyway<br>because they aren't minimal users of IPv4. (we would assume)<br><br></div></blockquote>For most enterprises, the IPv6 cost would be a one-time initial</div><div>fee of $1,250 and they would then pay $100/year thereafter,</div><div>which, if they had direct IPv4 resources or an ASN would be</div><div>the same $100/year they are already paying.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite">The real costs will<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">come in man-hours of planning, deployment, training, support and<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">skill building, HW/SW compatability issues, compliance issues, lost<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">business and broken applications. As far as costs...those are the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">real killers for IPv6 (IMO).<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><br>Looking at IPv6 from a purely financial perspective what the<br>enterprise is ultimately going to come up against is that you<br>are definitely going to lose customers if you have no IP to<br>give them, and you may lose customers if you have IP to give<br>them but it's only IPv6.<br><br></div></blockquote>By enterprise above, I assume from context you mean end-users</div><div>as was described earlier.</div><div><br>End users shouldn't be giving IP addresses to their customers,</div><div>so, the above paragraph doesn't make sense to me. If you mean</div><div>ISPs rather than End users, then, the above paragraph sort of</div><div>makes sense, but, it's unclear to me how you expect to continue</div><div>to have IPv4 addresses to give customers throughout 2012,</div><div>or, especially beyond that date.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>And of course since the actual IPv4 "runout" is going to vary<br>from company to company, the companies with the most money<br>who can afford to buy IPv4 off the transfer market, will have<br>a competitive advantage - as long as the transfer market can<br>continue to fill IPv4 orders.<br><br></div></blockquote>Perhaps, perhaps not. I expect one of two things will happen with</div><div>the alleged transfer market...</div><div><br></div><div>1.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>There will be little to no supply available at any price, or, it</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>will be at such extremely high prices that there will be very</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>few who can afford to buy it. In this case, competitive advantage</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>is only an advantage if you can make enough money off of</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>your subscribers to cover the high cost of address acquisition.</div><div><br></div><div>or</div><div><br></div><div>2.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>The address transfer market will be vibrant, indeed, and the</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>IPv4 routing table will rapidly grow to a completely unworkable</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>size causing fragmentation, discontinuity, and damage to the</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>IPv4 internet, inevitably leading to the rapid deployment of</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>IPv6 just for the sake of restoring global reachability.</div><div><br></div><div>In either case, what is likely to happen is that the IPv4 transfer</div><div>market will create strong financial and/or technical incentives</div><div>to move to increase the speed of a move towards IPv6.</div><div><br></div><div>Owen</div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><br></font></div></blockquote></div><br></body></html>