On Fri, 2012-08-03 at 14:22 -0500, Otis L. Surratt, Jr. wrote:
> 1. How are you making up loss of revenue on IPv4 assignments?
By using legacy IP only were it is necessary. This way I have to support
only one stack (IPv6), that saves me money.
Regards.
Dan
--
Dan Luedtke
http://www.danrl.de
On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 04:00:18PM -, John Levine wrote:
> >Do you see problems with this scheme? There's considerable
> >interest and momentum in end user owned routing infrastructure,
> >including wireless ad hoc meshes across urban areas.
>
> I've seen remarkably little overlap between the
>Do you see problems with this scheme? There's considerable
>interest and momentum in end user owned routing infrastructure,
>including wireless ad hoc meshes across urban areas.
I've seen remarkably little overlap between the people that think ad
hoc meshes are a fabulous liberating technology an
On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 06:53:48PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> This ignores the many many studies of the idea of geo-based
> addressing which have proven its unfeasibility as well as the
I disagree that the studies have looked at the problem
space from the right angle.
> fact that not everyone
On Aug 4, 2012, at 12:41 , Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 10:31:02AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>>> IPv6 missed a great chance of doing away with all the
>>> central waterfall trickle-down space distribution.
>>>
>>
>> There was no need to fix what wasn't broken.
>
> Let's say
On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 10:31:02AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > IPv6 missed a great chance of doing away with all the
> > central waterfall trickle-down space distribution.
> >
>
> There was no need to fix what wasn't broken.
Let's say I want to plunk down a zero-administration
node somewhere
On Aug 4, 2012, at 03:01 , Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 08:31:06PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> You MIGHT have paid some other organization for the privilege of
>> transferring part or all of their registration rights to you.
>>
>> But in no case did you pay for the addresse
On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 10:59:09AM -0500, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On 8/4/12, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 08:31:06PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > onboard (as most smartphones and tablets do).
> > 24 + 24 + 16 bits are just enough to represent
> > a decent-resolution WGS84 position f
On 8/4/12, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 08:31:06PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> onboard (as most smartphones and tablets do).
> 24 + 24 + 16 bits are just enough to represent
> a decent-resolution WGS84 position fix. Plus,
> GPS gives you a pretty accurate clock.
Yes, very interest
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 08:31:06PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> You MIGHT have paid some other organization for the privilege of transferring
> part or all of their registration rights to you.
>
> But in no case did you pay for the addresses themselves unless you are silly
> enough to think that
o should
your IPv4 costs.
Owen
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Cutler James R [mailto:james.cut...@consultant.com]
> Sent: Fri 8/3/2012 10:04 PM
> To: Otis L. Surratt, Jr.
> Cc: NANOG list
> Subject: Re: IPv6 End User Fee
>
> I would say that the typ
NANOG list
Subject: Re: IPv6 End User Fee
I would say that the typical usage, at least here in the US, is that an End
User is the one holding an iPhone or sitting at a computer watching the
Olympics, and, ultimately, paying that last mile fee.
Even using your definition, the costs of co
On Aug 3, 2012, at 20:22 , Randy Bush wrote:
>> You must not charge for the addresses at all, they are not
>> yours, you can't sell them.
>
> do i pay for them?
NO, you don't. You _MIGHT_ pay for registration services where you are paying
for the service of having them uniquely registered in
> You must not charge for the addresses at all, they are not
> yours, you can't sell them.
do i pay for them?
IP which is typical
> then you would lose that revenue if they converted to IPv6. If you didn't
> charge for IPv4 then you have nothing to to lose.
>
> Otis
>
> From: Cutler James R [mailto:james.cut...@consultant.com]
> Sent: Fri 8/3/2012 3:48 PM
> To: Otis L. Surratt, J
Add value. You must not charge for the addresses at all, they are not
yours, you can't sell them.
In every "smart" business, the future is not anymore selling "goods" but
added value.
If you have a quasi-unlimited number of addresses in every customer, you
can star building up new value added ser
On 8/3/12, Otis L. Surratt, Jr. wrote:
> Anyone charging end users for IPv6 space yet? :p
>
ISPs already charge for bandwidth link capacity. Why charge a fee to
discourage subscribers from adopting a protocol that will let the ISP
sell larger capacity links?
IPv6 packet headers are 40 bytes leng
>
> From: Cutler James R [mailto:james.cut...@consultant.com]
> Sent: Fri 8/3/2012 3:48 PM
> To: Otis L. Surratt, Jr.
> Cc: NANOG list
> Subject: Re: IPv6 End User Fee
>
>
>
> On Aug 3, 2012, at 3:22 PM, "Otis L. Surratt, Jr.
didn't charge for
IPv4 then you have nothing to to lose.
Otis
From: Cutler James R [mailto:james.cut...@consultant.com]
Sent: Fri 8/3/2012 3:48 PM
To: Otis L. Surratt, Jr.
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: IPv6 End User Fee
On Aug 3, 2012, at 3:22 PM, &q
On 8/3/12 3:42 PM, William Pitcock wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Aug 3, 2012, at 2:22 PM, "Otis L. Surratt, Jr." wrote:
>
>> Anyone charging end users for IPv6 space yet? :p
>>
>> Just wondering, with so many IPv6 resources in a single allocation it
>> would seem difficult to charge anything at all.
>>
>>
If anyone's ISPs are overcharging them, I will be able to provide
service for no more than 1 cent per available routable IPv6 address in
any netblock from /64 on up. We have a reasonable startup rate of a
/56 for the price of a /64 for the remainder of 2012, even!
-george
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at
Hi,
On Aug 3, 2012, at 2:22 PM, "Otis L. Surratt, Jr." wrote:
> Anyone charging end users for IPv6 space yet? :p
>
> Just wondering, with so many IPv6 resources in a single allocation it
> would seem difficult to charge anything at all.
>
> 1. How are you making up loss of revenue on IPv4 assi
If my ISP charged me fees for IPv6 space, I'd ditch them. They already
make enough money as is from modem/cable box rentals.
Derek
On 8/3/2012 6:12 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Otis L. Surratt, Jr. wrote:
Anyone charging end users for IPv6 space yet? :p
Just won
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Otis L. Surratt, Jr. wrote:
> Anyone charging end users for IPv6 space yet? :p
>
> Just wondering, with so many IPv6 resources in a single allocation it
> would seem difficult to charge anything at all.
>
> 1. How are you making up loss of revenue on IPv4 assignmen
On Aug 3, 2012, at 3:22 PM, "Otis L. Surratt, Jr." wrote:
> Anyone charging end users for IPv6 space yet? :p
>
>
> Otis
>
I can't imagine that this would be anything but counterproductive. End users
are not interested in IPv6 - most would not recognize IPv6 if it fell out of
their screen.
FWIW - Comcast isn't charging for native connectivity to residential users.
/TJ
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> On 8/3/12 12:22 PM, Otis L. Surratt, Jr. wrote:
> > Anyone charging end users for IPv6 space yet? :p
> >
>
> Nope, and no plans to.
>
> ~Seth
>
>
On 8/3/12 12:22 PM, Otis L. Surratt, Jr. wrote:
> Anyone charging end users for IPv6 space yet? :p
>
Nope, and no plans to.
~Seth
27 matches
Mail list logo
