[102618] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPV4 as a Commodity for Profit
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tom Vest)
Thu Feb 21 18:57:24 2008
In-Reply-To: <01e401c874db$cb7a5130$483816ac@atlanta.polycom.com>
Cc: "Adrian Chadd" <adrian@creative.net.au>,
"John Lee" <John@internetassociatesllc.com>,
"North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes" <nanog@merit.edu>
From: Tom Vest <tvest@eyeconomics.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 07:55:31 +0800
To: Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
(apologies in advance for extending this thread here rather than on
ppml -- will gladly take responses off-list, or move it over if
responders would prefer to continue the discussion there)
On Feb 22, 2008, at 6:22 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> Thus spake "Adrian Chadd" <adrian@creative.net.au>
>> As I ranted on #nanog last night; the v6 transition will happen
>> when it
>> costs more to buy / maintain a v4 infrastructure (IP trading,
>> quadruple
>> NAT, support overheads, v6 tunnel brokers, etc) then it is to migrate
>> infrastructure to v6.
>>
>> If people were sane (!), they'd have a method right now for an
>> enterprise to migrate 100% native IPv6 and interconnect to the v4
>> network via translation devices. None of this dual stack crap. It
>> makes
>> the heads of IT security and technical managers spin.
>
> I agree, to a point. My prediction is that when the handful of
> mega-ISPs are unable to get the massive quantities of IPv4
> addresses they need (a few dozen account for 90% of all consumption
> in the ARIN region)...
I keep reading assertions like this. Is there any public,
authoritative evidence to support this claim?
If there is, is this 90% figure a new development, or rather the
product of changes in ownership (e.g., MCI-VZ-UU, SBC-ATT, etc.),
changes in behavior (a run on the bank), some combination of the two,
or something else altogether?
Thanks,
TV
