[139749] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv4 address exchange
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rubens Kuhl)
Mon Apr 18 23:06:15 2011
In-Reply-To: <E1DCDAA7-15BE-4A94-A0C4-DDC98327D163@queuefull.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 00:06:10 -0300
From: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@gmail.com>
To: Nanog <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
>> perhaps, if you are seeking support for commercial activity, you should
>> make your employment more clear and declare any conflicts of interest.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> I am employed by Cisco Systems, but all of my statements are my own and I=
do not represent my employer. =A0I believe that my employer may benefit fr=
om any policy that makes IP addresses more available to more of our custome=
rs - we can perhaps sell more routers if more people have addresses - but n=
obody from Cisco has encouraged me to work in this topic. =A0Otherwise, I h=
ave no commercial interest in the outcome of the policy proposals that I've=
made. =A0The proposals that I've put forward are an honest attempt to moti=
vate conversation.
>
On the contrary, I believe router vendors including but not limited to
Cisco benefits more from IPv4 address exhaustion, as it's an
opportunity to sell new gear that can do hardware forwarding of IPv6
packets, or sell software upgrades to CPU-based platforms (either due
to lack of IPv6 altogether or lack of support of newer IPv6 features).
That doesn't mean that router vendors are promoting address exhaustion
chaos to get new business. That would be a nice conspiracy theory,
though...
Rubens
