[members-discuss] Interesting IP count

Dear Lu (and others),

From what I understand you have doubts about how serious IPv6 is and why it's needed. You
also carefully lay down some arguments and datapoints, which I appreciate. This topic has
been discussed multiple times before on this list, nevertheless I think it will not hurt
anybody if we go over some of the aspects of this subject again. 

Members-discuss@, I urge you to come forward with arguments why IPv6 is so desperately
needed and invalidate what Lu Heng brought to the list. I would love to compile all
reasoning into a document to be used in IPv6 workshops. 

Regarding the pro's and con's you've written:

	- I agree IPv6 addresses are hard to remember, this is something that will not change,
		 try to use automated DNS everywhere
	- In terms of routing, IPv6 is just 96 bits more of address space, that's mostly what
		 has changed. 
	- My guess is that IPv4 will but be available to everybody who needs it... up until
		 somewhere in the year 2013 (RIPE region). Maybe you can put consumer subscribers
		behind NAT's, but there are only so many portforwards you can make on inbound
		tcp/25 or tcp/443. 

In these dark times I always enjoy listening to Randy Bush's soothing voice, this is a 
short video I recommend watching: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh3i6lDqWBM

Kind regards,

Job




On 5 jun. 2012, at 00:22, Lu Heng wrote:

> Hi Colleuages:
> 
> Today I come across an very interesting article which I'd like to
> share with your guys and see what your guys think about it.
> 
> http://ilia.ws/archives/236-ISP-Popularity-by-Domain-Count.html
> 
> If what said in the article was true(which it should be as all the
> data from the article should be public data), if all the cable network
> start to use NAT, just in sense of domains, we might have IP supply
> for few more decades.
> 
> And it would be very interesting if someone from Ripe NCC can share
> with us what is the most IP consuming business in the planet.
> 
> In which, is that service can use NAT in sometime future?
> 
> I talked to an UK telecom provider one day in a ripe lunch, he told me
> that their network is already partly using NAT(sorry I didn't remember
> his name, but I am sure he is on this mailing list), and he only need
> a /21 for entire network.
> 
> And another thing was, I heard from one of my friend in the Apanic
> meeting, that someone is selling entire A class there for 10 USD/ IP.
> 
> We don't know if there is already some successful story there
> regarding IP sales. But seems to me, based on what happened on Asian
> now, at least in China, as I heard from many of my colleagues there,
> there was no real shortage there at this time.
> 
> No body goes bankrupt because of no IPs left.
> 
> So that raise an interesting point, since 60% of the world domain is
> in fact wasted, is that the same story with IP usage. After all, we
> allocated almost half of the pool before RIR even exists.
> 
> The current way of IP distributing results a very noneffective way of
> "past business" IP usage as well(e.g. someone changed their business
> from cable business to an enterprise business, of course that guy will
> not return Ripe NCC his additional free 2 M IPs).
> 
> So when their is a real market for IPv4, and all the latency space
> come to sale, will we last much much longer than everybody expected?
> 
> We our-self have few dozen of enterprise customers, and they are
> already paying 3-5 USD/ month /IP for years, as asking them to
> re-program their software and re-provision their business into IPv6,
> the cost will be enormous for them, and one more thing is, most
> software writers don't really like IPv6, as it is hard to remember and
> hard to type(it will be a whole lot easier if you just remember the IP
> and type it every time you have to do so, rather than copy paste, we
> all know the reason). So, even IP price eventually raise to 30USD even
> 50USD, it is still very hard for them to switch it over to IPv6 as
> long as they don't have IPv6-only client, because they are paying this
> amount of money for IP per year anyway.
> 
> Another thing is, one thing aside from RIR meetings and ISP meetings,
> we didn't really hear a lot about IPv6. IPv6 come into developer is
> still something new and interesting, and one guy I talked in the IPv6
> workshop in the Ripe64, a software developer for an Austria local
> company, who don't even know that IPv6 has been around for almost a
> decades.
> 
> Since Ripe is almost finish it's public pools, my last question is,
> will one day all the wasted IP address being effectively picked up
> because of existing marketplace, and that market place will last us
> another 3 decades before we really going to IPv6 ear?
> 
> Go Ipv6
> Pro
> Last forever(this reason doesn't really come into play because it this
> can be a reason convince enterprise customer then it should be done 10
> years ago.).
> unlimited amount of address space.(same as above)
> cost reasons.
> con:
> need new router new config new practice and testing almost every part
> of the business(from software to hardware).
> very hard to remember and write.
> (welcome to add more on this list)
> 
> IPv4
> pro
> you know how it works
> it works for all of our business life.
> it is easy to remember
> con
> cost reasons.
> 
> But let's look at how much we are paying Ripe NCC now, for large ones,
> they are paying more coffee in the office than they are paying Ripe
> thing. So does that really hurts them when they pay 20USD per IP, look
> at their margin and their current costs structure, I would say for
> most business, it should be fine.
> 
> If there is enough supply in the market for next decades, and keep the
> price well below 50 USD per IP, I believe 99% of business would accept
> this price and go on with their life.
> 
> History already tell us most of us don't look too far to the
> future(otherwise we are already there).
> 
> Hope my a bit of 2 cents can get more interesting thoughts come around.
> 
> -- 
> --
> Kind regards.
> Lu
> 
> This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above.
> It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or
> otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use
> of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the
> intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received
> this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and
> e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this
> message and including the text of the transmission received.
> 
> ----
> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss
> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page:
> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
> 
> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4867 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20120605/6d6cf47b/attachment.p7s>