[rpd] [Community-Discuss] Cloud Innovation Displays Very Poor, If Not Criminal, Netizenship

[Owen DeLong]

> On May 31, 2020, at 00:27 , Noah <noah at neo.co.tz> wrote:

> 

> 

> 

> On Sun, 31 May 2020, 05:16 Owen DeLong, <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:

> IPv4 only continues to have value as long as eyeballs and content are not available on IPv6.

> 

> And the process to make both eyeballs and content available on IPv6 is a spontaneous one. We ought to consciously acknowledge this fact.

> 


Not sure what you mean by your use of the word “spontaneous” here. In the words of Enigo Montoya… “I do not think it means what you think it means.”
 

> So… The statement that spending our energy migrating to IPv6 will devalue IPv4 is 100% accurate.

> 

> I never disagreed with that statement. 

> 

> One can argue that the introduction of IPv4 transfer markets just ensured the process to migrate to IPv6 become a joke.


One can argue just about anything. However, in reality, like it or not (and I don’t, I think my record on that is pretty clear), transfer markets were a reality
we were faced with regardless of whether RIR policy chose to recognize them or not.

1.	Nothing in existing RIR policy precluded derivatives (options), leasing, etc.
2.	Nothing in existing RIR policy was going to prevent off-books transfers where sufficient monetary incentive existed.

We were not faced with a choice between “Implement transfer markets or not.” We were faced with a choice of “Recognize transfer markets and
regulate them or ensure that they are black markets and that the RIR system and its IPv4 policies become irrelevant to the actual operation of
the internet.”


> So now we have folks with capital spending most of their energy moving IPv4 address space all over the place since its a currency that ensures serious economic benefits. 


If you know of a way to stop this, I’m all ears.


> Amazon (AWS) and Microsoft (Azure) and others alike for instance have been buying so much IPv4 space in recent years from this transfer markets.


I’ll point out that each of the groups you mention have also been deploying IPv6. Faced with the business externalities that they are, they really have no choice but to try
and acquire enough IPv4 to support customer demand for as long as possible. I can assure you that each of them would love to see customer demand for IPv4 go away.


> One also just cant force eyeballs all over the place to deploy IPv6 unless content folks went full regalia and made content only available on IPv6 while risking IPv4 revenue.


That day is coming one way or another… Eventually, we will see a point where there simply aren’t any more IPv4 addresses available for new content providers, or, we
will have depleted the available IPv4 addresses for eyeballs.

OTOH, IPv6 is available to the vast majority of eyeballs in the US. Comcast has 100% IPv6 coverage, as do most of the major cellular carriers. AIUI, the other major
eyeball ISPs in the US are fast approaching that.

(In the case of fixed wired ISPs, that is IPv6 is available to any subscriber whose CPE supports it and who hasn’t deliberately turned it off).


> Atleast this is how I see it. Capitalism at its best.


Or one of the finest examples of how capitalism is nearly as flawed as the alternatives.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200531/3fbf6438/attachment.html>