[155302] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 End User Fee
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sat Aug 4 02:21:53 2012
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <5FE1FB6D43B8A647BBC821840C1AEA8BCCDC@ocsbs.ocosa.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 23:17:43 -0700
To: "Otis L. Surratt, Jr." <otis@ocosa.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Aug 3, 2012, at 21:05 , "Otis L. Surratt, Jr." <otis@ocosa.com> =
wrote:
> I was thinking about End User in a sense of one to simply consume a =
product or a service offered by a service provider. However, I should =
have left room for those that are assigned GUA space by a service =
provider and reassign space to their end users. (i.e. Allocated /48 and =
reassign /64 or /56)
That shouldn't happen... If you are acting as an LIR, you should be =
getting at least a /32 and you should be assigning at least a /48 to =
your end users.
> I do agree that the infrastructure and management costs out way the =
costs of provider independent space. I agree it would be extremely =
difficult to setup some sort of fee for any prefix size in IPv6.
>=20
> Then it's fair to say the approach should be simply to chalk the lose =
in IPv4 revenue and move on. It's not a big concern for us. I was just =
curious as to the large providers that make extra money off those =
wanting more IPv4 addresses.
Is it really a loss? If you're doing things right, IPv4 is costing you =
more and more and more money every year. When your IPv4 revenue goes =
away, so should your IPv4 costs.
Owen
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cutler James R [mailto:james.cutler@consultant.com]
> Sent: Fri 8/3/2012 10:04 PM
> To: Otis L. Surratt, Jr.
> Cc: NANOG list
> Subject: Re: IPv6 End User Fee
>=20
> I would say that the typical usage, at least here in the US, is that =
an End User is the one holding an iPhone or sitting at a computer =
watching the Olympics, and, ultimately, paying that last mile fee.
>=20
> Even using your definition, the costs of connectivity (routers, wires, =
management) far exceeds the cost of addressing. Given the quantity of =
numbers available for IP addressing, it is does not make economic sense =
to even construct a billing mechanism for IPv6 addressing beyond those =
of the LIRs, RIRs, etc. Purchase IPv6 connectivity includes the =
assumption of IPv6 addressing included.
>=20
> On Aug 3, 2012, at 7:32 PM, "Otis L. Surratt, Jr." <otis@ocosa.com> =
wrote:
>> By end user I mean hosting clients (cloud, collocation, shared, =
dedicated, VPS, etc.) of any sort. For example you have clients that =
would need....say /24 for their dedicated server. If you charge a =
$1.00/IP which is typical then you would lose that revenue if they =
converted to IPv6. If you didn't charge for IPv4 then you have nothing =
to to lose.
>>=20
>> Otis
>>=20
>> From: Cutler James R [mailto:james.cutler@consultant.com]
>> Sent: Fri 8/3/2012 3:48 PM
>> To: Otis L. Surratt, Jr.
>> Cc: NANOG list
>> Subject: Re: IPv6 End User Fee
>>=20
>> On Aug 3, 2012, at 3:22 PM, "Otis L. Surratt, Jr." <otis@ocosa.com> =
wrote:
>>> Anyone charging end users for IPv6 space yet? :p
>>>=20
>>> <snip/>
>>> Otis
>>>=20
>>=20
>> I can't imagine that this would be anything but counterproductive. =
End users are not interested in IPv6 - most would not recognize IPv6 if =
it fell out of their screen. End users want working connectivity, not =
jargon.=20
>>=20
>> James R. Cutler
>> james.cutler@consultant.com
>>=20
>>=20
>=20
>=20
