A few thoughts:
1. What global organization has the ability to impose a tax on any nation’s citizens? 2. Do you not see an issue with making everyone worldwide get rid of every device that supports v4? Kind of a burden for a developing country, no? Also, a bit of an e-waste problem I would think. 3. Do you think that any organization with the power to tax some Internet usage (like v6) will stop there and not figure a way of continuing the cash flow forever? 4. The FCC and other standardization organizations often have statutory authority to manage things like spectrum management and consumer safety. What would be their authority to mandate v6 usage? 5. Why not just get carriers to make v4 service an optional extra just like static address requests? There is no reason to empower government more than they already are. Simple economic pressure would work. 6. Why is your issue more important than any other so-called global issue like carbon taxes, endangered species, human trafficking, etc? Do you want to go to a world government to encourage adoption of IPv6? Why should anyone care about that other than us engineers working under the hood 7. If someone like say Botswana says we are not paying your tax, do you intend to send in UN Peacekeeping Forces to collect the money owed? Are we going to war with North Korean if they won’t let us check their routers for the presence of v4 addresses? 8. What is the economic or social reasoning behind obsoleting ipV6? Is this really an existential global issue or are you just inconvenienced by dealing with both address families? While we think it a big deal here on NANOG, do you really think that the public sees that issue somewhere in their top 20 priorities? I doubt it. 9. Some world government enforcing global network standard migrations? What could possibly go wrong there ☺. Do permanent UN Security Council members retain the right to veto these standards? 10. I think at one time the US Government demanded POSIX compliance for all of their systems. That did not even work on the scale of the US Government managing their own systems. Why would this work any better? Governments are notoriously bad at managing their own IT systems, I don’t think we want them managing all of ours as well. Steven Naslund Chicago IL From: NANOG <nanog-boun...@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Antonios Chariton Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2019 11:38 AM To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: IPv6 Thought Experiment 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<mailto: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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nanog.org_resources_usage-2Dguidelines_&d=DwMFaQ&c=ZyuC0pi8BQ0JtN0UhY3DPMRPQOzp-0mvXzAggKz74wI&r=ZOBJlMbaeeVccIxR59VB6LkI6RgrNZbvYF8H4DSvu2w&m=4rR7Ud6Vljd1pXdLAh2nQP63Hs8tI2xouHDLGEJ6sZQ&s=sM3SUK1qHxNP7ddTtji3wFHI-AL8Rrh4T4EZpNaMbEI&e=>
