Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[rpd] Two more petitioners

Owen DeLong owen at
Thu Dec 21 17:09:24 UTC 2017

> On Dec 21, 2017, at 06:15 , Jackson Muthili <jacksonmuthi at> wrote:
> On Thursday, December 21, 2017, Mark Elkins <mje at <mailto:mje at>> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 21/12/2017 12:33, Noah wrote:
> >
> > On 21 Dec 2017 10:37, "Mark Elkins" <mje at <mailto:mje at>> wrote:
> >
> > We really need to "eat" the existing IPv4 up quickly (in a responsible way, using the current policy) in order to leave no alternative except IPv6 deployment. Then, everybody wins.
> >
> > If we did what you have suggested above, we would end up starving so bad and while starving, the IPv$ brokers would swing in so fast and dictate the price of the readily available yet  much needed IPv4 space.
> >
> > Starve - or change your diet - to IPv6.
> If Ipv6 were the solution, we would not have a budding secondary market for IPv4 addresses in America, Europe and Asia.

This is a false dichotomy and very misleading. IPv6 is the solution, but there is a key problem that still hasn’t been resolved…

The IPv6 solution doesn’t work for party A until all parties B, C, D, E, etc. that party A needs to converse with have also implemented IPv6.

Thus, laggards in this regard are actually inflicting real costs on others and causing real harm to the internet at this point.

> > There appears to be very little incentive to change attitudes and adopt IPv6. If the IPv$ brokers arrive with high prices, people might just start to notice the alternative.
> IPv4 brokers have arrived already with high prices. Companies out there are not deterred. They are buying. And passing that cost to the customer.

Depends on the company. However, due to the unfortunate reality mentioned above, this situation may well be more attributable to the networks that are lagging on their IPv6 implementation than to the networks that are purchasing additional IPv4. Also, I suspect there is some point where consumers will reject the price increases and the resulting loss of business/revenue will provide some additional incentives.

Unfortunately, the incentives in this case don’t necessarily flow to the parties that need to make the change.

> > Service delivery to the end user we love so much would become so expensive in order to recover the cost.
> Thank you. To avoid this unfortunate predicament upon us for the foreseeable future, we must ration the remaining IPv4 carefully.

Rationing IPv4 doesn’t solve this problem. This is the underlying fiction behind the arguments in favor of SL-BIS. The theory that if the free pool
lasts longer, it means that IPv4 lasts longer and that end users are still getting the addresses they need during that period.

The reality is that all it really means is that end users can’t be rolled out as quickly because the rate at which addresses are made available to
new end users is reduced in order to slow down the rate at which the free pool empties.

This is the fundamental objection I have to the SL-BIS policy proposal and I don’t think I’m the only one who has this objection or sees this for
the fiction that it truly is.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list