On 3/6/06 10:25 AM, "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
Thus spake <Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com>
Let's face it, IPv6 is close enough to IPv4 that any attempt to put a price on IPv4 addresses will simply cause a massive migration to free and plentiful IPv6 addresses.
You assume that there will be a source of free and plentiful IPv6 addresses. AFAIK, none of them are rent-free, and they're not even available unless you have the clue and resources to prented to be an LIR.
So, unless there's policy change, most end-user orgs will have no choice but to pay the market rate for IPv4 addresses. Spot markets are good when demand is elastic, but we're faced with a market that has growing inelastic demand that will outstrip fixed supply in a decade. Capitalism doesn't handle that well.
S
Stephen Sprunk "Stupid people surround themselves with smart CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Aaron Sorkin
Stephen, There will be a average cost per host to transition from v4 to v6. When the cost of IPv4 addresses exceeds the transition cost, then you have the one thing missing from IPv6 discussions: an ROI. Many organizations wont even look at this without an ROI. Folks who want to see v6 adopted would be well advised to support the creation of a hard ROI through these means. (Just as an aside - capitalism has historically been the best mechanism for resource allocation - scarce resource or plentiful. Command economics have never historically beaten a fair and open market, despite the beliefs of a certain sector of those involved with IP address allocation. ARIN (and/or RIPE, APNIC) should really use a bit of their budget surplus to provide a few grants to economics professors who are experts in commodity market issues. As engineers, we grope in the dark concerning fairly well established scientific principles we are unfamiliar with. Its like reinventing the wheel. :( -- Daniel Golding