Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: IPv4 address exchange
From: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 00:06:10 -0300

perhaps, if you are seeking support for commercial activity, you should
make your employment more clear and declare any conflicts of interest.

Fair enough.

I am employed by Cisco Systems, but all of my statements are my own and I do not represent my employer.  I believe 
that my employer may benefit from any policy that makes IP addresses more available to more of our customers - we can 
perhaps sell more routers if more people have addresses - but nobody from Cisco has encouraged me to work in this 
topic.  Otherwise, I have no commercial interest in the outcome of the policy proposals that I've made.  The 
proposals that I've put forward are an honest attempt to motivate conversation.

On the contrary, I believe router vendors including but not limited to
Cisco benefits more from IPv4 address exhaustion, as it's an
opportunity to sell new gear that can do hardware forwarding of IPv6
packets, or sell software upgrades to CPU-based platforms (either due
to lack of IPv6 altogether or lack of support of newer IPv6 features).

That doesn't mean that router vendors are promoting address exhaustion
chaos to get new business. That would be a nice conspiracy theory,


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]