[address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Lu Heng
h.lu at anytimechinese.com
Fri Jun 12 12:58:36 CEST 2015
One correction to my last post "no provider today will be able provide end customer IPv6 access only network" On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Lu Heng <h.lu at anytimechinese.com> wrote: > I see IPv4 and IPv6 like land in the real world, the remote land are very > cheap and the centre land are very expensive, however unless there is > enough incentives from the city planning, no body will move out of the city > center because of high housing price/high rent, especially business. > > One thing I see in over past years is people in the tech community think > while we built a new land, people will immediately go there simplify > because there are more space, however, concentration effect does play an > more important role in this game, and why, because IPv6 in technology wise, > it does not bring significant business benefits other than more of them, so > in business view, it is simply cheaper(not like CPU or web design language, > the improvement over years are tremens). > > So actions like turn on IPv6 day will help promote future of the IPv6, > increase the concentration rate of the users in IPv6, however, totally > abundant IPv4 will take long time, the reason for that, the IPv4 is very > cheap. > > How many IP address a small size e-commerce website need, /24 will be > already a lot, 256 IP at today's market, most E-commerce are paying 2 USD > per month for, so it is 500 USD a month in cost, in which, is really not > cost a lot. And I believe the provider to the website will pay more than > 72USD(3 year return) per address to buy IP address to serve this customer > simply because they receive 24USD per year from these addresses. And if you > think of real world rent, most shop in most city center, rent cost will > almost be one third or half of their total revenue, no surprise that no > business has real business incentive to move over to IPv6. if you consider > the size of IPv6 only network today(in which practically is none, everyone > still have IPv4 access, no provider today will be able provide end customer > IPv6 access network). > > I see IPv4 and IPv6 will co-exists for many years to come, the cost to use > IP address has been surprising kept at real minimum for many many years, so > no business will not provide IPv4 access.while more business providing IPv6 > access might encourage more deployment of IPv6 in the end user, the age of > the dual stack I believe will last my generation. For the reason that, cost > of deploy dual stack compare to the risk of losing customer of lacking of > IPv4 access, is really minimum. > > But no surprise to that, network won't break, business won't be affected, > IP address end of day, is simply an globe rule of set of numbers to > identify something, 32 bit or 128 bit, as long as you can reach someone, > there is no worries there. > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Arash Naderpour <arash_mpc at parsun.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Randy, >> >> "ipv4 is gone and we need to get over it" maybe looks correct from a point >> of view, but it does not for everyone in the community. >> What I'm trying to say is that IPv4 is the only option for a part of >> community and they just cannot get over it. >> >> That part of community (mostly developing countries) are the one that >> acting >> as the buyer and the IPv4 market exists when there is a need. >> >> I try to read the discussion of the last/8 proposal, things are changed >> and >> we may need to adapt to new conditions. >> >> Regards, >> >> Arash Naderpour >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy at psg.com] >> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 7:30 PM >> To: Arash Naderpour >> Cc: 'Aleksi Suhonen'; address-policy-wg at ripe.net >> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs >> >> > Can you please give me some example of developing countries that are >> > "skipping IPv4 completely"? >> >> i suggest that it is not productive to spend bandwidth on the "you should >> be >> using ipv6" religion. >> >> > I think there are still good numbers that need to use IPv4 because of >> > their developing stage. >> >> yep. but there is a small problem. we are out of ipv4 space. there >> ain't >> no more. >> >> > If we as the community are looking for additional distribution of last >> > /8 (as suggested by Yuri), I think It would be better to consider >> > their conditions too. >> >> it would save a lot of shouting if you (and yuri and ...) read the >> discussion of the last/8 proposal so we do not have to repeat it; many of >> us >> have too damned much real work to do to spend time repeating old >> discussions. it boiled down to >> o ipv4 is essentially gone, we need to get over it >> o if the last /8 was left in the allocation pool, it would be gone >> in a small number of weeks and we would be back to "ipv4 is gone" >> o so, ipv4 is essentially gone, we need to get over it >> o if we do the one minimal allocation for a new LIR, it will let new >> entrants at least run a NAT >> o but ipv4 is essentially gone, we need to get over it >> o so some greedy animals will fight over the scraps. that's life >> o bottom line, ipv4 space is gone, we need to get over it >> >> it seems we may have underestimated the destructive aspects of the greedy >> phase. ah well. >> >> randy >> >> >> > > > -- > -- > Kind regards. > Lu > > -- -- Kind regards. Lu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150612/1cee66ab/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]