>> It will be a long time
>> before the price of v4 rises high enough to make it
>> worth the risk of going v6 only.
>
>New ISP's are born everyday.
>
>Some of them will be able to have a "Buy an ISP that has
>IPv4" or "Buy IPv4 space from known brokers" line item in
>their budget as part of thei
Hi,
I am Kshitiz Verma, a Ph.D. student in Madrid, Spain, working in the area
of studies on the Internet ecosystem. We are conducting a survey on the
Internet disputes, not limited to, but mainly focusing on de-peering. We
will appreciate responses from the community that help us build our data on
On Saturday, March 22, 2014 09:57:04 PM John Levine wrote:
> 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.
On 03/22/2014 10:16 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 22/03/2014 16:29, Doug Barton wrote:
It is a mistake to believe that the only reason to add IPv6 to your network
is size. Adding IPv6 to your network _now_ is the right decision because at
some point in the not-too-distant future it will be the dom
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:18 AM, TGLASSEY wrote:
> How do you as the people operating the network think two exabytes of data
> gets pushed across your networks to each of the PRISM Collection Sites
> (daily) with no one noticing... Know what I mean?
Wouldn't You Like To Know?
drive slow...
Pau
> don't believe for a moment that v6 to v4 protocol translation is any less
> ugly than CGN.
it can be stateless
randy
On 3/22/2014 12:24 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
It's my understanding and experience that most gov't jurisdictions will give
CLECs and other telecommunication providers access to the RoW -- generally
speaking it's not exclusive to ILECs or MSOs. Now the challenge may be
finding room in the existing RoW
Le 22/03/2014 23:49, Nick Hilliard a écrit :
> On 22/03/2014 19:35, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
>> CGN also comes with lots of downside that customers are likely to find
>> unpleasant. For some operators, customer (dis)satisfaction might be the
>> driver that ultimately forces them to deploy IPv6.
>
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 22/03/2014 19:35, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
CGN also comes with lots of downside that customers are likely to find
unpleasant. For some operators, customer (dis)satisfaction might be the
driver that ultimately forces them to deploy IPv6.
don't bel
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014, Keith Medcalf wrote:
I don't see this as a technical problem, but one of business and ethics.
ISP X advertises/sells customers "up to 8Mbps" (as an example), but when
it comes to delivering that product, they've only guaranteed 512Kbps (if
any) because the ISP hasn't put in t
On 22/03/2014 19:35, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
> CGN also comes with lots of downside that customers are likely to find
> unpleasant. For some operators, customer (dis)satisfaction might be the
> driver that ultimately forces them to deploy IPv6.
don't believe for a moment that v6 to v4 protocol
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014, Nick Hilliard wrote:
FB, T-mobile and you are all using ipv6->ipv4 protocol translators because
ipv6-only services are not a viable alternative at the moment.
Using IPv6 internally is different from being able to use IPv6 end-to-end.
6<->4 translators will be needed to re
On 22/03/2014 18:50, Tore Anderson wrote:
> * Nick Hilliard
>> the level of pain
>> associated with continued deployment of ipv4-only services is still nowhere
>> near the point that ipv6 can be considered a viable alternative.
>
> This depends on who you're asking; as a blanket statement it's
> d
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014, William Herrin wrote:
That's what I hear. Interesting thing though: it hasn't happened yet.
IANA ran out of /8's and it didn't happen. The RIRs dropped to
high-conservation mode on their final allocations and it didn't
happen. How could that be?
I never said that things wo
I see this argument, and then I remember working for a company that happily
sold 6 and 12 meg dsl from a dslam that was backhauled by a 3mb pair of t1s.
There needs to be some oversight that it is at least possible / likely to
reach a reasonable expectation of normal destinations with the service
* kmedc...@dessus.com (Keith Medcalf) [Sat 22 Mar 2014, 20:16 CET]:
The problem is that the consumer is too stupid to own a computer and use a
network.
That is a great attitude that will bring you far in life
> Why would market economies switch to the US model? Consumers there
> pay a lot more for much less performance.
stateside consumer internet is a third world country ruled by robber
barons supported by a corrupt government.
skip the politics and hyperbole and judge by the bottom line. at home
>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)
* snasl...@medline.com (Naslund, Steve) [Fri 21 Mar 2014, 17:00 CET]:
I see no reason why the US model would not work in any market economy.
Why would market economies switch to the US model? Consumers there
pay a lot more for much less performance.
-- Niels.
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Justin M. Streiner
wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Mar 2014, William Herrin wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Justin M. Streiner
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> All of these 'Hail Mary' options for 'saving' IPv4 really are pointless.
>>
>>
>> IPv4 is like the U.S. Penny. It'll b
On Saturday, March 22, 2014 05:54:06 PM Justin M. Streiner
wrote:
> Interesting analogy, but it misses the larger point. The
> larger point is that the ongoing effort to squeeze more
> mileage out of IPv4 will soon [1] outweigh the mileage
> we (collectively) get out of it. IMHO, that effort is
>I don't see this as a technical problem, but one of business and ethics.
>ISP X advertises/sells customers "up to 8Mbps" (as an example), but when
>it comes to delivering that product, they've only guaranteed 512Kbps (if
>any) because the ISP hasn't put in the infrastructure to support 8Mbps
>per
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014, William Herrin wrote:
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Justin M. Streiner
wrote:
All of these 'Hail Mary' options for 'saving' IPv4 really are pointless.
IPv4 is like the U.S. Penny. It'll be useless long before it goes
away. And right now it's far from useless.
Bill:
* Nick Hilliard
> the level of pain
> associated with continued deployment of ipv4-only services is still nowhere
> near the point that ipv6 can be considered a viable alternative.
This depends on who you're asking; as a blanket statement it's
demonstrably false: For the likes of T-Mobile USA¹ an
On Mar 22, 2014, at 10:16 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 22/03/2014 16:29, Doug Barton wrote:
>> It is a mistake to believe that the only reason to add IPv6 to your network
>> is size. Adding IPv6 to your network _now_ is the right decision because at
>> some point in the not-too-distant future
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Justin M. Streiner
wrote:
> All of these 'Hail Mary' options for 'saving' IPv4 really are pointless.
Hi Justin,
IPv4 is like the U.S. Penny. It'll be useless long before it goes
away. And right now it's far from useless.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. H
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014, Cb B wrote:
You can pay $3 per ipv4, that is your business. But, it may be worth noting
that AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, T-Mobile, TWT, Google Fiber all have have
double digit ipv6 penetration today.
To be fair:
Verizon Wireless, if you're referring to 4G LTE? Agreed.
I don't
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014, Bryan Socha wrote:
Oh btw, how many ipv4s are you hording with zero justification to keep
them? I was unpopular during apricot for not liking the idea of no
liability leasing of v4. I don't like this artificial v4 situation
every eyeball network created.Why is
It's my understanding and experience that most gov't jurisdictions will give
CLECs and other telecommunication providers access to the RoW -- generally
speaking it's not exclusive to ILECs or MSOs. Now the challenge may be
finding room in the existing RoW for another provider, but the challenges
a
On 22/03/2014 16:29, Doug Barton wrote:
> It is a mistake to believe that the only reason to add IPv6 to your network
> is size. Adding IPv6 to your network _now_ is the right decision because at
> some point in the not-too-distant future it will be the dominant network
> technology, and you don't
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 7:18 AM, TGLASSEY wrote:
> I want to ask you folks something...
>
> How do you as the people operating the network think two exabytes of data
> gets pushed across your networks to each of the PRISM Collection Sites
> (daily) with no one noticing... Know what I mean>?
>
> T
On 03/22/2014 08:47 AM, Robert Webb wrote:
First, there may be those that do not require IPv6 due to size.
It is a mistake to believe that the only reason to add IPv6 to your
network is size. Adding IPv6 to your network _now_ is the right decision
because at some point in the not-too-distant
So two things here, Bryan...
First, there may be those that do not require IPv6 due to size. So what
is YOUR big plan to connect all those on IPv4 to the rest of the IPv6
world that has dropped IPv4 addresses.
Second, as a DO customer, I am now beginning to understand the culture
and ideolog
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Bryan Socha wrote:
> Oh btw, how many ipv4s are you hording with zero justification to keep
> them? I was unpopular during apricot for not liking the idea of no
> liability leasing of v4. I don't like this artificial v4 situation
> every eyeball network
I want to ask you folks something...
How do you as the people operating the network think two exabytes of
data gets pushed across your networks to each of the PRISM Collection
Sites (daily) with no one noticing... Know what I mean>?
Todd Glassey
On 3/21/2014 6:54 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On
On Mar 22, 2014 2:32 AM, "Bryan Socha" wrote:
>
> Oh btw, how many ipv4s are you hording with zero justification to keep
> them? I was unpopular during apricot for not liking the idea of no
> liability leasing of v4. I don't like this artificial v4 situation
> every eyeball network creat
On Mar 22, 2014 12:08 AM, "Bryan Socha" wrote:
>
> As someone growing in the end of ipv4, its all fake.Sure, the rirs
will
> run out, but that's boring.Don't believe the fake auction sites.
> Fair price of IP at the end is $1 for bad Rep $2 for barely used, $3 for
no
> spam and $4 for lega
> As someone growing in the end of ipv4, its all fake. Sure, the rirs
> will run out, but that's boring.
yes, a lot of news at eleven. and there is and will continue to be a
very active market as the large 'gas' in ipv4 space settles. but ...
> Fair price of IP at the end is $1 for bad Rep $2
Oh btw, how many ipv4s are you hording with zero justification to keep
them? I was unpopular during apricot for not liking the idea of no
liability leasing of v4. I don't like this artificial v4 situation
every eyeball network created.Why is v4 a commodity and asset? Where
is the au
Fair point. There are some situations that do need more than most, but
aren't they the ones that should be on ipv6 already???
I know a few are shouldn't I be on ipv6 and that's fair too. I'm
plqnnning some speaking engagements to cover that. Its not blind and
ignoring.
On Mar 22, 2014 4:
Millions of IPs don't matter in the face of X billions of people, and
XX-XXX billions of devices - and this is just the near term estimate.
(And don't forget utilization efficiency - Millions of IPs is not millions
of customers served.)
Do IPv6.
/TJ
On Mar 22, 2014 3:09 AM, "Bryan Socha" wrote:
As someone growing in the end of ipv4, its all fake.Sure, the rirs will
run out, but that's boring.Don't believe the fake auction sites.
Fair price of IP at the end is $1 for bad Rep $2 for barely used, $3 for no
spam and $4 for legacy.Stop the inflation. Millions of IPS exist,
ther
42 matches
Mail list logo
