[address-policy-wg] ***CAUTION_Invalid_Signature*** Re: IPv4 reserved space

On Sun, Jun 12, 2016, at 23:22, David Conrad wrote:
> Radu-Adrian,
> 
> On Jun 12, 2016, at 1:26 PM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
> <ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
> > Unless you manage to bring in money by using IPv6 and *NOT* IPv4, it
> > remains either a "submarine project" or an explicit NO-GO.
> 
> In most businesses, there are two (non-exclusive) ways to get traction on
> doing pretty much anything:
> 
> 1) it generates more revenue.
> 2) it reduces costs.

David, 

For the moment neither of those applies to IPv6 deployments. Cost
reductions only applies to a limited number of players (those for which
a 25% reduction in v4 traffic  does end up in cost reduction, which
implies a certain size).

> more revenue -- the vast majority of customers do not and should not care
> about something as esoteric as the particular bit layouts at an

At some point, some categories of customers will have to start caring
about this if we want to move forward. Especially those that need "port
redirections to access the 2-3 devices in their office".

> one nice thing about markets is that they can provide explicit signals
> that help businesses decide. While there were free pools, the RIR system
> masked those signals, ironically making it harder for businesses to see

For the moment it's old big players that mask those signals :
"$incumbent does provide us a /28 (or a /27). If you can't do the same,
we will not buy the service from you".  As long as this is only one
random customer/prospect, you may be able to deal with it (let it stay
with the incumbent or provide it the block needed). When you have lots
of them, you have a problem. It's THEM that have to start caring about
IPv6.

> CGN are now a direct and obvious cost network service providers will need
> to account for and (likely) pass on to their customers.

When you go from ZERO to something (CGN-wise) you don't do any cost
reduction.

> migrating their internal infrastructure to IPv6 and selling a native
> IPv6/CGN'd IPv4 solution by default, having non-CGN'd IPv4 as an extra
> cost option (at least for new customers and increasingly, 

As explained above, as of today no IPv4 = no business. I am willing to
wait for the things to change, but in the meantime it's IPv6 that is
under life support (that I have to provide alone).

> old customers when their contracts renew).  

Today, this is more painful for them than switching to another provider
that does provide them with the needed IPv4 space. Those providers DO
exist.

> Now that most ISP network gear supports IPv6, the first part of that would
> make sense regardless of the regulatory environment.

This pretty much looks like "lab in production". usually it's not very
well seen.

--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs