[ncc-services-wg] Policy proposal for services to legacy Internet resource holders

Hello,

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012, Michael Markstaller wrote:

>> It would solve nothing.  If people insist on cementing their IPv4
>> world for a few more years, they would have *more* stuff to move to
>> IPv6 in the long run - nothing solved.
> Agreed, not solve but shift the "problem" - though, I'm no enemy of
> v6, just to tell you my real-world view of IPv6: No single customer
> was ever interested in, no single hit on the servers we ran a while
> back around  v6-Day, no single user on the xDSL we provide wanted to
> use it; the only result were new problems nobody pays for.

Maybe you missed some previous messages, or the messages were not clear 
enough: the lack of address space is not a user problem, it's a service 
provider's problem.

However, the service provider can make this a user's problem if they 
choose to NAT, double-NAT, triple-NAT, ... ;-(


> Don't take this as a rant please, I know about your efforts in many
> ways, the problems are sourced by low usage/training etc.

We still see situations were there was a clear gap in IPv4 training too... 
;-)


> But it's a
> real big chicken-egg-problem and as a very small provider in business
> my primary job is to get a working infrastructure and happy customers
> that pay money; none of them ever wanted to pay a single Euro for v6
> (maybe because you have all of them ;))

And customers also don't want to pay for 32-bit numbers. All they want is 
"service", their applications to work, and so forth...


> But then I have another 2ct if this is relevant under this topic:
> I found no details in the proposals how the deal with "selling v4
> addresses"(*) which will IMHO happen soon when v4 is fully exhausted.
> *I don't vote for this* but one or another way, it might be "cheaper"
> to "buy" v4 space then migrate networks, so it will happen.
> If I get with limited knowledge things right now, this might be a
> topic that could be of relevance in future.
>
> *) This was discussed quite a while back, maybe on another WG for a
> short time but AFAIR didn't make it to a conclusion.

The policy proposal, afaik, will be improved during the discussion phase. 
Selling *legacy* v4 addresses is something that i think it already 
happenned in other regions, but anyway i don't think that is this 
policy's focus...

ps: "cheaper" always depends on the timeframe you're considering. It may 
be cheaper in the short-run (3m, 6m, 1y, ...), but that option can in 
fact turn out to be more expensive if you cannot scale it, and you finally 
understand you need to go through an emergency migration process, and 
possibly lose customers or potential customers during that phase. :-)


Best Regards,
Carlos Friaças


> best regards
>
> Michael
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAlA+f8MACgkQaWRHV2kMuAKuKwCfR1xibpJJvd6UugoehCbRLy+9
> 6zIAn0PMuVXgYWM0uLN4CnzCK5eaxq0L
> =xMKo
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>