To clarify that further, this would be a monthly tax. So $2 / month.
> On 2 Oct 2019, at 19:33, Antonios Chariton <daknob....@gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear list, > First of all, let me apologize if this post is not allowed by the list. To my > best interpretation of the guidelines [1] it is allowed, but may be in a gray > area due to rule #7. > > I would like to propose the following thought experiment about IPv6, and I > would like your opinion on what you believe would happen in such a case. Feel > free to reply on or off list. > > What if, globally, and starting at January 1st, 2020, someone (imagine a > government or similar, but with global reach) imposed an IPv4 tax. For every > IPv4 address on the Global Internet Routing Table, you had to pay a tax. > Let’s assume that this can be imposed, must be paid, and cannot be avoided > using some loophole. Let’s say that this tax would be $2, and it would > double, every 3 or 6 months. > > What do you think would happen? Would it be the only way to reach 100% IPv6 > deployment, or even that wouldn’t be sufficient? > > And for bonus points, consider the following: what if all certification > bodies of equipment, for certifications like FCC’s or CE in Europe, for > applications after Jan 1st 2023 would include a “MUST NOT support IPv4”.. > > What I am trying to understand is whether deploying IPv6 is a pure financial > problem. If it is, in this scenario, it would very very soon become much more > pricey to not deploy it. > > I know there are a lot of gaps in this, for example who imposes this, what is > the "Global Internet Routing Table", etc. but let’s try to see around them, > to the core idea behind them. > > Thanks, > Antonis > > ------- > Links > ------- > 1: https://nanog.org/resources/usage-guidelines/ > <https://nanog.org/resources/usage-guidelines/>
