Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways...
On Nov 18, 2021, at 5:15 PM, John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com> wrote:
Keeping the price of IPv4 addresses reasonable means that dual-stack servers can continue to be deployed at reasonable cost, so that it doesn't matter whether clients have IPv6 or IPv4. Any company that put its services on IPv6-only sites today would be cutting off 65% of their potential customers. Even if v6 had 90% of the market, why would a company want 10% of its prospects to be unable to reach its service?
I find myself thinking about Reliance JIO, an Indian company. Iirc, their IPv4 and IPv6 statistics are in the slide deck they presented to the IETF a year or two back, and they came to me/us a little later wanting somehow expand the IPv4 address pool. In short, most of their services are IPv6 only. The only thing they want IPv4 addresses for is their enterprise customers, who want an IPv4 option wherever IPv6 is an option - so they don’t have to select IPv6. That’s all we’ll and good if the IPv4 addresses exist and work globally. Someone (was it you?) noted earlier in the thread that it might be acceptable to provide IPv4 address space that only worked in certain places. I find myself thinking about the arguments for a global DNS root. What a regional IPv4 connectivity limit creates is a network that doesn’t work everywhere, meaning that the government of <> will be incented to deploy that address space locally within their country and provide a national NAT firewall to somehow protect their citizens - because of course the bad guys are always somewhere else. Kind of like the US wants to regulate encryption because nobody outside the US uses it or whatever. WHATEVER! I tend to think that if we can somehow bless a prefix and make be global unicast address space, it needs to become Global Unicast Address Space. This is becoming a rant, so I’ll stop…