[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: A use for site local addresses?


> Enduser ISP's will always charge for extra IP space as it's
> currently not customary to give an enduser more than 1 IP.
> Also IPv4 is a becoming a 'scarce' resource.

And what precisely we change this custom for IPv6?  Quoting RFCs
is silly in the face MBAs motivated by profit is folly.
> > Absent some regulation, there is no reason to believe that
> > they will stop charging for IPv6 address space no matter
> > how freely the bits are made available to them. 
> > It would be great if ISPs would charge for bandwidth
> > only but that simply isn't the way the world currently works 
> > and there is absolutely nothing about IPv6 that will change that.
> > More bits in the address don't mean diddly if the only way to
> > get the bits is through an oligarchy of ISPs.
> If the ISP doesn't provide /48's to an endsite, other ISP's
> will have the advantage that they do. Also if the ISP doesn't
> they are going against RFC's.

RFCs fall regularly in the face of the profit motive.
> You might also realize that the current TLA policy for RIR's
> demands that you have 200 prospect clients. That is 200x /48.
> Aka 200 endusers on DSL will suffice for them.
> Currently even most tunnelbroker system endusers get
> a /48 and in some cases even more. And they are not even
> paying for bandwidth nor for ipspace. Go figure ;)

I have little faith that the current state of affairs will resemble the
eventual state of affairs.  No one currently expects to make money from
IPv6.  Once they do, address space will become a profit center.  MBAs don't
care about RFCs.

Tim Hartrick
Mentat Inc.
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com