IPv4 has already been trading around $10/address. So the prices quoted a while back don’t make much sense to me.
Further, could you please quantify “vast”? How many /8 equivalents in a “vast number”? Until they ran out, APNIC was issuing approximately 1.5 /8s per month. How long, exactly, do you expect 3.2 billion unicast addresses to provide enough addressing for 6.8+ billion people? Owen On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:57 PM, John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote: >> In such a case, where you are still pushing the case for >> IPv4, how do you envisage things will look on your side when >> everybody else you want to talk to is either on IPv6, or >> frantically getting it turned up? Do you reckon anyone will >> have time to help you troubleshoot patchy (for example) IPv4 >> connectivity when all the focus is on IPv6? > > I've put that concern on my calendar for sometime around 2025. > > People have been saying switch to IPv6 now Now NOW for about a decade, > and you can only cry wolf so many times. My servers do IPv6 through a > tunnel from HE (thanks!) where the performance is only somewhat worse > than the native v4, and my home cable has v6 that mostly works, but > the key term there is mostly. (The ISP had a fairly bad internal > routing bug which apparently nobody noticed until I tracked down why > my v6 connectivity was flaky, and I happened to know some senior > people at the ISP who could understand what I was telling them about > their internal routers.) > > We've just barely started to move from the era of free IPv4 to the one > where you have to buy it, and from everyhing I see, there is vast > amounts of space that will be available once people realize they can > get real money for it. The prices cited a couple of messages back > seem to be in the ballpark. It will be a long time before the price > of v4 rises high enough to make it worth the risk of going v6 only. > > R's, > John > >
