<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On May 31, 2020, at 00:27 , Noah <<a href="mailto:noah@neo.co.tz" class="">noah@neo.co.tz</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><div class=""><br class=""><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, 31 May 2020, 05:16 Owen DeLong, <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" class="">owen@delong.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space" class="">IPv4 only continues to have value as long as eyeballs and content are not available on IPv6.</div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">And the process to make both eyeballs and content available on IPv6 is a spontaneous one. We ought to consciously acknowledge this fact.</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>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.”</div><div> <br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space" class=""><div class="">So… The statement that spending our energy migrating to IPv6 will devalue IPv4 is 100% accurate.</div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">I never disagreed with that statement. </div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">One can argue that the introduction of IPv4 transfer markets just ensured the process to migrate to IPv6 become a joke.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>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</div><div>we were faced with regardless of whether RIR policy chose to recognize them or not.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>1.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Nothing in existing RIR policy precluded derivatives (options), leasing, etc.</div><div>2.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Nothing in existing RIR policy was going to prevent off-books transfers where sufficient monetary incentive existed.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>We were not faced with a choice between “Implement transfer markets or not.” We were faced with a choice of “Recognize transfer markets and</div><div>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</div><div>the internet.”</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><div dir="auto" class="">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. </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>If you know of a way to stop this, I’m all ears.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><div dir="auto" class="">Amazon (AWS) and Microsoft (Azure) and others alike for instance have been buying so much IPv4 space in recent years from this transfer markets.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>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</div><div>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.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><div dir="auto" class="">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.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>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</div><div>will have depleted the available IPv4 addresses for eyeballs.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>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</div><div>eyeball ISPs in the US are fast approaching that.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>(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).</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><div dir="auto" class="">Atleast this is how I see it. Capitalism at its best.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Or one of the finest examples of how capitalism is nearly as flawed as the alternatives.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Owen</div><div><br class=""></div></body></html>