[address-policy-wg] Concerns on policy proposal 2005-08

Hi,


On Fri, 26 Jan 2007, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

(...)
> What I recall is that address space is not a good to be sold by the LIRs,
> and they don't own it. Only the real cost for the "management" should be
> charged, and I can tell you for sure that this is not in the order of 12
> Euros per month per IPv4 address as it is being charged in Spain (I guess
> about the same in other countries).

Yes. Unfortunately :-(
If an end-customer wants a fixed public IP, it usually pays for an 
"extra".


> So the real situation with IPv4 is that this is not the case. Many ISPs
> actually "sell" the addresses.

Yes. Afaik, this is true for ISPs with a broad spectrum of customers 
(but not every LIR is doing this...).

Theory <> Practice. :-(



> We need to understand that if we do the same with IPv6, we in fact kill IPv6

Kill "early deployment of" IPv6.
In five/six years from now, global needs should be different... ;-)


> and there is no advantage to deploy it. The possible business with IPv6 is
> the fact that new services and applications can be generated and make profit

Which new services and applications?
99,9999... % of engineers/programmers/designers/... are "formatted" for 
the v4-only perspective.
And i'm not even thinking about the holy grail - the killer app - but the 
fact is that there's still no application that could *significantly* work 
better in v6 when compared to v4.


> from them BECAUSE:
> 1) there are enough IPv6 addresses
> 2) its provision is easier (specially if all the end-users get the same
> prefix, so network become "flat", such as /48 right now).

Very marginal effect on profit. This can in fact help reduce expenses, but 
no real effect on profit.


> 3) there is no NAT (which will be better avoid if we have 1 and 2 above)

Unfortunately most people like NAT. :-(


> Probably we can add other things to the list, but the important point is to
> make sure that the addresses are there for end-users applications and
> services at no cost (and I'm not talking just about money, but
> "justification" cost).

Justification cost = Time is money! :-)

I can partially agree with this. However, on the other side i can also see 
that bigger ISPs could get an eye on IPv6, if they could make some extra 
money by assigning /48s to customers. Smaller ISPs could of course get 
into IPv6 from the perspective of offering something others still don't.


Cheers,

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Friac,as                                            See:
Wide Area Network Working Group (WAN)                      www.gigapix.pt
FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional      www.ipv6.eu
Av. do Brasil, n.101                                       www.6diss.org
1700-066 Lisboa                                            www.geant2.net
Tel: +351 218440100 Fax: +351 218472167
www.fccn.pt
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

  "Internet is just routes (209927/730), naming (billions) and... people!"


Aviso de Confidencialidade
Esta mensagem e' exclusivamente destinada ao seu destinatario, podendo
conter informacao CONFIDENCIAL, cuja divulgacao esta' expressamente
vedada nos termos da lei. Caso tenha recepcionado indevidamente esta
mensagem, solicitamos-lhe que nos comunique esse mesmo facto por esta
via ou para o telefone +351 218440100 devendo apagar o seu conteudo
de imediato.

Warning
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee.
It may contain CONFIDENTIAL information protected by law. If this
message has been received by error, please notify us via e-mail or by
telephone +351 218440100 and delete it immediately.