Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: IPv6 End User Fee
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 23:17:43 -0700


On Aug 3, 2012, at 21:05 , "Otis L. Surratt, Jr." <otis () ocosa com> wrote:

I was thinking about End User in a sense of one to simply consume a product or a service offered by a service 
provider. However, I should have left room for those that are assigned GUA space by a service provider and reassign 
space to their end users. (i.e. Allocated /48 and reassign /64 or /56)

That shouldn't happen... If you are acting as an LIR, you should be getting at least a /32 and you should be assigning 
at least a /48 to your end users.

I do agree that the infrastructure and management costs out way the costs of provider independent space. I agree it 
would be extremely difficult to setup some sort of fee for any prefix size in IPv6.

Then it's fair to say the approach should be simply to chalk the lose in IPv4 revenue and move on. It's not a big 
concern for us. I was just curious as to the large providers that make extra money off those wanting more IPv4 
addresses.

Is it really a loss? If you're doing things right, IPv4 is costing you more and more and more money every year. When 
your IPv4 revenue goes away, so should your IPv4 costs.

Owen




-----Original Message-----
From: Cutler James R [mailto:james.cutler () consultant com]
Sent: Fri 8/3/2012 10:04 PM
To: Otis L. Surratt, Jr.
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: IPv6 End User Fee

I would say that the typical usage, at least here in the US, is that an End User is the one holding an iPhone or 
sitting at a computer watching the Olympics, and, ultimately, paying that last mile fee.

Even using your definition, the costs of connectivity (routers, wires, management) far exceeds the cost of 
addressing.  Given the quantity of numbers available for IP addressing, it is does not make economic sense to even 
construct a billing mechanism for IPv6 addressing beyond those of the LIRs, RIRs, etc. Purchase IPv6 connectivity 
includes the assumption of IPv6 addressing included.

On Aug 3, 2012, at 7:32 PM, "Otis L. Surratt, Jr." <otis () ocosa com> wrote:
By end user I mean hosting clients (cloud, collocation, shared, dedicated, VPS, etc.) of any sort. For example you 
have clients that would need....say /24 for their dedicated server. If you charge a $1.00/IP which is typical then 
you would lose that revenue if they converted to IPv6. If you didn't charge for IPv4 then you have nothing to to 
lose.

Otis

From: Cutler James R [mailto:james.cutler () consultant com]
Sent: Fri 8/3/2012 3:48 PM
To: Otis L. Surratt, Jr.
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: IPv6 End User Fee

On Aug 3, 2012, at 3:22 PM, "Otis L. Surratt, Jr." <otis () ocosa com> wrote:
Anyone charging end users for IPv6 space yet? :p

<snip/>
Otis


I can't imagine that this would be anything but counterproductive.  End users are not interested in IPv6 - most 
would not recognize IPv6 if it fell out of their screen.  End users want working connectivity, not jargon. 

James R. Cutler
james.cutler () consultant com







  By Date           By Thread  

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