My point is that in some ways, it’s better than you think. IF USG chose to step in and simply require IPv6 deployment (IPv4 optional) as a minimum for federal funding (say USF money, to advertise yourself as a broadband or internet service provider, etc.), that would drive the necessary deployment of IPv6. Turning IPv4 off would then occur as a natural cost-saving measure over time.
The reason the broadcasters refused the last extension was because they were tired of paying to maintain dual-stack transmitters. Owen > On Sep 12, 2021, at 11:19 , Steven Ryerse <[email protected]> > wrote: > > My only claim is that the US Government could step in if they want to, and by > law, dictate a switch to another Internet energy sooner than the market might > otherwise do it. I suspect you are right that if the Government did get > involved, it would be a sloppy and inefficient implementation with fits and > starts like the HD TV migration was. I know none of us want to duplicate > that experience in the IP Internet world, which is why I prefer market forces > to drive any switch. > > > Steven Ryerse > President > > [email protected] | C: 770.656.1460 > 100 Ashford Center North | Suite 110 | Atlanta, Georgia 30338 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Owen DeLong <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2021 1:17 PM > To: Steven Ryerse <[email protected]> > Cc: Joe Maimon <[email protected]>; Ronald F. Guilmette > <[email protected]>; arin-ppml <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Change of Use and ARIN (was: Re: AFRINIC And The > Stability Of The Internet Number Registry System) > > >> On Sep 12, 2021, at 10:04 , Steven Ryerse <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> I am fine with right-sizing allocations. An AT&T size network should be >> able to receive a larger allocation based on the size of their network >> versus our organization which should only receive a smaller allocation based >> on the size of our network. This would work for IPv4 & Ipv6 and IPv8 if >> someone invents it. >> >> The costs involved for an organization of adding Internet services will >> dictate the time of an IP energy shift. The costs of IPv4 will play a part >> of it especially as the cost goes up a lot, but other real costs also factor >> in and those would be combined with high costs of IPv4 addresses to finally >> encourage an IP energy shift. >> >> The other thing that could cause a shift to another IP energy sooner >> would be interference by say, the US Government, requiring in law a >> shift away from IPv4 - similar to what they did with HD TV signals. I >> prefer to let the market decide when. 😊 > > You should look at that HDTV thing again before making that claim… > > The FCC actually extended the deadline several times at the request of > consumer advocates and NTIA as they completely botched the set top box > voucher program repeatedly. > > The end result at a certain point was that the broadcasters rejected the last > extension and basically said “You can extend the deadline all you want, but > we’re turning off the transmitters now.” > > Owen > >> >> Steven Ryerse >> President >> >> [email protected] | C: 770.656.1460 >> 100 Ashford Center North | Suite 110 | Atlanta, Georgia 30338 >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Joe Maimon <[email protected]> >> Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2021 3:22 AM >> To: Steven Ryerse <[email protected]>; Ronald F. Guilmette >> <[email protected]>; arin-ppml <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Change of Use and ARIN (was: Re: AFRINIC And >> The Stability Of The Internet Number Registry System) >> >> >> Steven Ryerse wrote: >>> >>> So we have Ipv4 which is the energy currently running most of our internet. >>> IPv4 has a known total of IP addresses. The reserves of unused IPv4 are >>> spread around the planet in an inefficient and uneven manner. Every day >>> more and more IPv4 addresses are put to work running services on the >>> Internet which is slowly making them more scarce. As the price rises over >>> time per IPv4 address on the open market, a lot of this inefficient and >>> uneven spread of IPv4 addresses will even out somewhat via the open market. >>> This will keep the price reasonably low for awhile ($75 Per tank full) but >>> as these IPv4 addresses become more scarce the price will slowly climb >>> until the day comes where they become very expensive by todays standards >>> ($500 per tank full) and at some point ($1000 per tank full or more) and >>> the organizations wanting to add more services to the Internet will look >>> for a cheaper alternative. >> >> The significant difference is that IPv4 is a lot more recyclable than oil. >> >> It happens to be possible to create oil derivatives from other energy >> sources. >> >>> So it is likely that we may never actually run out of IPv4 addresses >>> (especially because of the uneven spread of them). >> >> Agreed. >> >>> >>> Frequently what I read in this forum from some members makes me feel like I >>> am back in high school being told we will run out of IPv4 (oil) very soon. >>> As we approached "Exhaustion" there was a steady drumbeat of various >>> members wanting to update policies to somehow "save" IPv4 from running out. >>> Some policies were changed to try and slow the run out but we still reached >>> the point of "Exhaustion" (end of the 1990's) and its now 2021 and guess >>> what - we haven't run out of IPv4. This was easily predictable and some >>> members shared exactly this perspective in this forum and were largely >>> ignored for a long time. Now the free market has taken over like it ALWAYS >>> does and the reserves of IPv4 that were always there - have been slowly >>> coming to market in one way or another as the scarcity of IPv4 is slowly >>> increasing. This will continue and the price of IPv4 (oil) will slowly >>> rise. I suspect just like the oil predictions in the 70's, IPv4 may still >>> have a long way to go before it is replaced with a new IP energy (2030's?, >>> 2040's?, 2050's? or possibly later?). >> >> Let us not gloss over the wasted costs associated with this unnecessary and >> interminably long period. >> >>> The other possibility of new Internet energy happening sooner is a killer >>> Internet app that eats up IPv4 addresses so fast that the cost per address >>> rises much faster than it is doing now. VisiCalc and then Word Perfect >>> were the killer apps that cemented PC usage throughout corporate America, >>> Microsoft Exchange was the Killer app that cemented Microsoft Windows >>> Server as the de facto server standard for corporate America, and so on. >> >> Those killer apps are stillborn on the drawing board due to address >> scarcity. Any that survive do so without addressing dependencies. >> >> As you probably recall, the internet used to be a whole lot more p2p than it >> is now. Now we have all sorts of centralized applications and services that >> have significantly displaced that. To what extent has address scarcity >> played a role is another question. >> >> Precisely where IPv6 is strongest, mobile, is where p2p is least applicable. >>> >>> >>> This is why I have always advocated for furthering the Internet by making >>> it reasonably easy and inexpensive for organizations to get IPv4 resources, >>> especially small organizations. My policy proposal several years ago to >>> allow any organization in the ARIN region to easily get a /24 was shot down >>> - or at least not supported by the members of this community and forum. >>> For those that think we should have switched to IPv6 (new energy) by now, >>> "saving" the Internet from "Exhaustion" has actually had the opposite >>> effect of delaying the day that IPv6 might take over as the new Internet >>> energy. So not supporting my policy proposal to make /24 easy to get (we >>> should still do it) as well as not supporting other members that promoted >>> reasonable easier access to IPv4 resources have had the effect of delaying >>> the day IPv6 might take over as the Internet energy. Should we really have >>> a limit on the size of an IPv4 block that ARIN can assign if the need can >>> be demonstrated? >> >> You cant have it both ways if you want RiR's to implement any form of >> rationing and preferential assignment. Which I actually do, on record with >> policy proposals. >> >>> >>> I'm certainly against fraud of any kind, including in our community and >>> region, but reasonable policies on leasing IP address space that are >>> aligned with the free market make sense. Again, I am for any proposal that >>> furthers the Internet knowing the eventual scarcity in IPv4 will cause us >>> all to switch to the next IP energy - whenever it happens and whatever it >>> turns out to be. (I think we should add that original phrase back into the >>> ARIN Mission Statement even now.) Our organization will be ready for the >>> new Internet energy and we will embrace it as it comes. All things >>> considered, Excel was better than Lotus 123 which was better than VisiCalc >>> and so on. >>> >>> I wonder what predictions they are teaching our children in high >>> school these days? My twenty-five cents. 😊 >>> >>> Steven Ryerse >>> President >>> >>> [email protected] | C: 770.656.1460 >>> 100 Ashford Center North | Suite 110 | Atlanta, Georgia 30338 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: ARIN-PPML <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Ronald F. >>> Guilmette >>> Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2021 12:01 AM >>> To: arin-ppml <[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Change of Use and ARIN (was: Re: AFRINIC And >>> The Stability Of The Internet Number Registry System) >>> >>> In message >>> <[email protected]>, >>> Paul E McNary <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> We are out of ipv4 IP's. >>> Not really. It's just that the ones that we have are very poorly >>> distributed and also very poorly utilized. >>> >>> It is technically possible to host 100,000+ web sites on a single IPv4 >>> address. >>> Is is also technically possible to provide email service for 100,000+ >>> domains on a single IPv4 address. Is anybody doing that? No. Because the >>> incentives to do so just aren't there... yet. >>> >>> If you think that we've run out of IPv4 addresses, talk to the U.S. DoD >>> which just re-routed 175 million of their 221,971,968 IPv4 addresses, just >>> to use them as one colossal and record-shattering honeypot. >>> >>> If you think that we've run out of IPv4 addresses, talk to Comcast and ask >>> them why they haven't moved to IPv6 and then returned their 79,419,720 IPv4 >>> addresses to the free pool to help everyone out and relieve this artificial >>> "scarcity" for the benefit of everyone. >>> >>> If you think that we've run out of IPv4 addresses, talk to AT&T and >>> T-Mobile and Verizon about the huge piles of IPv4 that each is sitting on. >>> Or better yet, talk to the Ford Motor Company, and The Prudential Insurance >>> Comapny, the U.S. Postal Service, and to Apple, none of whom is a service >>> provider, and all of whom are individually sitting on an entire /8 or more >>> (i.e. >>>> = 16,777,728 addresses each). >>> Then maybe we could ask if Amazon really needs 23.3 million, if IBM really >>> needs a whole 17.5 million, if Google really needs 13.1 million, if Eli >>> Lilly really needs 11.5 million, and if Merck really needs 7.2 million, and >>> if Bank of America really needs 6.2 million. >>> >>> We're dying of thirst in the middle of Lake Superior. >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> rfg >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-PPML >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN >>> Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >>> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. >>> >>> >>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click >>> links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the >>> content is safe. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-PPML >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN >>> Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >>> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click >> links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the >> content is safe. >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN >> Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. > > > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click > links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the > content is safe. _______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
