RE: IPv4 Pricing

[Gary Sparkes via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

> Little websites named after a forest and an auction website for old junk (Amazon and Ebay).

This, again, speaks back to my point about extensive legacy infrastructure holding them back. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Josh Luthman via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org> 
Sent: Monday, December 1, 2025 2:27 PM
To: North American Network Operators Group <nanog () lists nanog org>
Cc: Aaron C. de Bruyn <aaron () heyaaron com>; Josh Luthman <josh () imaginenetworksllc com>
Subject: Re: IPv4 Pricing

> Yes there can be some things to shake out to implement it, but once 
> those
are done, they're done.

That's absolutely not true.  Tier 1 support will have to deal with v6 issues.  Customers will have additional issues 
due to IPv6.  Absolutely more than a v4 only network (today, not speaking for the future).

> What are your end users talking to that is IPv4-only these days, 
> because
it’s not much pretty much all the e-mail/cloud/office/docs things are IPv6 these days, and yeah it’s harder to remember 
2620:fe::fe than 9.9.9.9 but who besides a few of us still have phone numbers memorized either these days?

Little websites named after a forest and an auction website for old junk (Amazon and Ebay).

On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 2:23 PM Jared Mauch via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>
wrote:

> > On Dec 1, 2025, at 2:06 PM, Tom Beecher via NANOG 
> > <nanog () lists nanog org>
> wrote:
> > > > this thread has done nothing except rehash the same viewpoints 
> > > > that get
> > > discussed ad nauseam for the last however many years.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure if you just don't see it or you're being funny.
> >
> >
> > It's a correct statement.
> >
> > "IPv6 doesn't work" : Google's stats show that just shy of 50% of 
> > all
> their
> > traffic is native V6. Most of the largest CDNs will give you similar 
> > answers. Yes there can be some things to shake out to implement it, 
> > but once those are done, they're done.
> >
> > "My customers don't ask for it." : Customers don't ask for IPv4. 
> > They
> don't
> > ask for NAT/CGNAT either. But you do those things I'm sure, because 
> > as
> you
> > said, they just want things to work.
> >
> > The answer is really money. You made a business decision not to 
> > incur the hardware/software/support costs to implement V6 for your customers.
> That's
> > fine, no shame in that. Maybe that will never be a problem for you,
> maybe
> > someday it will and it will cost you. Who knows.
> >
> > But just be honest and call it what it is, instead of half baked
> statements
> > that have been repeated for decades.
>
>
> Exactly.
>
> Talking to friends at companies that do social networking stuff pretty 
> much all their traffic (over 90%) is from mobile devices, and when I 
> look at the big 3 mobile networks in the US they all do IPv6.  Their 
> MVNO’s might vary, but the main networks do IPv6.
>
> I find myself having to tether off their networks when I’m on IPv4 
> only networks to access things like my hypervisors and other assets 
> that are IPv6-only because they have superior networking these days.
>
> If you are doing IPv4-only, you are only harming yourself long-term.  
> The solutions are there for all the things you think you will 
> encounter.  For the most part it’s 96 more bits, no magic.
>
> Yes there are a few nuances to be aware of, like proxy-arp saves a lot 
> of people when they do kinky things in IPv4 and proxy-NDP is there, 
> but not in the same way on many platforms.  One of the last big 
> hurdles out there was
> IPv6 support for VTEP in FRR in my mind and that gap was recently closed.
>
> I also happen to think that Apple got it wrong when they rolled 
> private relay out, they kept the inbound tunnel protocol to outbound 
> proxy behavior on the same address family when they could have 
> upgraded it on the outbound side to IPv6 which would have closed the gap even more.
>
> What are your end users talking to that is IPv4-only these days, 
> because it’s not much pretty much all the e-mail/cloud/office/docs 
> things are IPv6 these days, and yeah it’s harder to remember 
> 2620:fe::fe than 9.9.9.9 but who besides a few of us still have phone 
> numbers memorized either these days?
>
> Do you need a ton of IPv4 space?  Not really, but if you’re a cable 
> company like RCN, yeah you’re not doing any upgrades, but if you are 
> leaving assets on IPv4 just because you are leaving them on IPv4, then 
> at some point you are just wasting money.
>
> Send it to me and Tom so we can buy more hockey tickets.
>
> - Jared
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list
>
> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/NM
> BYWMNZ7ROM6WMGFJ7IAYLKPFQG3BUO/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/5M7ANDNUNQRIODBM5B6IGSH3P4XPSBYJ/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/KW2UAS5IAJMMNCD7CPXWW6R7IIGTHZ6B/