[89139] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen Sprunk)
Fri Mar 3 11:05:21 2006
From: "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org>
To: "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <iljitsch@muada.com>
Cc: "North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes" <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 10:04:07 -0600
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Thus spake "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <iljitsch@muada.com>
> On 3-mrt-2006, at 0:22, Mark Newton wrote:
>> Right now we can hand them out to anyone who demonstrates a need
>> for them. When they run out we'll need to be able to reallocate
>> address blocks which have already been handed out from orgs who
>> perhaps don't need them as much as they thought they did to orgs
>> which need them more.
>
>> Sounds like a marketplace to me. How much do you think a /24 is
>> worth? How many microseconds do you think it'll take for members
>> of each RIR to debate the policy changes needed to alter their
>> rules to permit trading of IPv4 resource allocations once IANA
>> says, "No!" for the first time?
>
> This is what I wrote about this a couple of months ago: http://
> ablog.apress.com/?p=835
>
> An interesting aspect about address trading is that some organizations
> have huge amounts of address space which didn't cost them anything, or at
> least not significantly more than what smaller blocks of address space
> cost others. Having them pocket the proceeds strikes me as rather unfair,
> and also counter productive because it encourages hoarding. Maybe a
> system where ARIN and other RIRs buy back addresses for a price per bit
> prefix length rather than per address makes sense.
Keep in mind that current RIR allocations/assignments are effectively leases
(though the RIRs deny that fact) and, like any landlord, they can refuse to
renew a lease or increase the rent at any point.
There might be some interesting political battles when it comes to legacy
allocations which are currently rent-free, but those tenants will find
themselves woefully outnumbered when that day comes.
>> We'll also have a reasonably good idea of what it'd cost to perform an
>> IPv6 migration as we gather feedback from orgs who have
>> actually done it.
>
> I don't think the cost is too relevant (and hard to calculate because a
> lot of it is training and other not easily quantified expenditures), what
> counts is what it buys you. I ran a web bug for a non-networking related
> page in Dutch for a while and some 0.16% of all requests were done over
> IPv6. (That's 1 in 666.) So even if it's free, deploying IPv6 today isn't
> all that useful. But when you're the last one running IPv4, you'll really
> want to move over to IPv6, even if it's very expensive.
Ah, but why? As long as IPv4 has similar or better performance
characteristics to IPv6, why would anyone _need_ to migrate? Add to that
the near certainty that vendors will create NAT devices that will allow an
entire v4 enterprise to reach the v6 Internet...
S
Stephen Sprunk "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with
K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Aaron Sorkin