[address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs

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: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150612/1cee66ab/attachment.html>