Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
Pardon my ignorance - what do you see missing in MPLS in regards to support for IP6?-------- Original message -------- From: Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> Date: 07/06/2015 9:44 AM (GMT-05:00) To: Lee Howard <Lee@asgard.org> Cc: Josh Moore <jmoore@atcnetworks.net>, nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion And let's all complain to the MPLS working group to get IPv6 support finished up! -mel beckman
On Jul 6, 2015, at 6:27 AM, Lee Howard <Lee@asgard.org> wrote:
Some thoughts. . .
³Native dual-stack² is ³native IPv4 and native IPv6.²
³Dual-stack² might be native, or might by ³native IPv6 plus IPv4 address sharing.²
Your IPv4 address sharing options are CGN, DS-Lite, and MAP. There are operational deployments of all three, in the order given. You need them close enough to your customers that traffic will return over the same path. You can¹t share state among a cluster of boxes, but that¹s not the end of the world; a device failure sometimes causes loss of state. MAP is the hot new thing all the cool kids are doing.
Look to your router and load balancer vendors for devices that do these. CGN is the only one that doesn¹t require updates to the home gateway. The more IPv6 your customers use, the smaller your CGN/AFTR/MAP can be.
Think about how you¹ll position it to customers. It¹s difficult to change a customer¹s service mid-contract. At some point, a customer is no longer profitable: if NAT costs and service calls add up, you may be better off buying addresses or losing the customer. You may need to buy some IPv4 addresses to give you time; contact a broker.
You may be surprised how hard it is to root IPv4 out of the system. Don¹t buy anything you can¹t manage over IPv6, including servers and applications. Sorry, vendor, I can¹t buy your cluster, I don¹t have the IPv4 address space to provision it.
Lee
On 7/4/15, 8:09 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Josh Moore" <nanog-bounces@nanog.org on behalf of jmoore@atcnetworks.net> wrote:
Traditional dual stack deployments implement both IPv4 and IPv6 to the CPE. Consider the following:
An ISP is at 90% IPv4 utilization and would like to deploy dual stack with the purpose of allowing their subscriber base to continue to grow regardless of the depletion of the IPv4 space. Current dual stack best practices seem to recommend deploying BOTH IPv4 and IPv6 to every CPE. If this is the case, and BOTH are still required, then how does IPv6 help with the v4 address depletion crisis? Many sites and services would still need legacy IPv4 compatibility. Sure, CGN technology may be a solution but what about applications that need direct IPv4 connectivity without NAT? It seems that there should be a mechanism to enable on-demand and efficient IPv4 address consumption ONLY when needed. My question is this: What, if any, solutions like this exist? If no solution exists then what is the next best thing? What would the overall IPv6 migration strategy and goal be?
Sorry for the length of this email but these are legitimate concerns and while I understand the need for IPv6 and the importance of getting there; I don't understand exactly HOW that can be done considering the immediate issue: IPv4 depletion.
Thanks
Joshua Moore Network Engineer ATC Broadband 912.632.3161
MPLS requires an IPv4 core. You can't run an IPv6-only infrastructure because neither CSCO or JNPR have implemented LDP to distribute labels for IPV6 prefixes. -mel via cell On Jul 6, 2015, at 7:15 AM, andrew <andrew@ethernaut.io<mailto:andrew@ethernaut.io>> wrote: Pardon my ignorance - what do you see missing in MPLS in regards to support for IP6? -------- Original message -------- From: Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org<mailto:mel@beckman.org>> Date: 07/06/2015 9:44 AM (GMT-05:00) To: Lee Howard <Lee@asgard.org<mailto:Lee@asgard.org>> Cc: Josh Moore <jmoore@atcnetworks.net<mailto:jmoore@atcnetworks.net>>, nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion And let's all complain to the MPLS working group to get IPv6 support finished up! -mel beckman
On Jul 6, 2015, at 6:27 AM, Lee Howard <Lee@asgard.org<mailto:Lee@asgard.org>> wrote:
Some thoughts. . .
^3Native dual-stack^2 is ^3native IPv4 and native IPv6.^2
^3Dual-stack^2 might be native, or might by ^3native IPv6 plus IPv4 address sharing.^2
Your IPv4 address sharing options are CGN, DS-Lite, and MAP. There are operational deployments of all three, in the order given. You need them close enough to your customers that traffic will return over the same path. You can^1t share state among a cluster of boxes, but that^1s not the end of the world; a device failure sometimes causes loss of state. MAP is the hot new thing all the cool kids are doing.
Look to your router and load balancer vendors for devices that do these. CGN is the only one that doesn^1t require updates to the home gateway. The more IPv6 your customers use, the smaller your CGN/AFTR/MAP can be.
Think about how you^1ll position it to customers. It^1s difficult to change a customer^1s service mid-contract. At some point, a customer is no longer profitable: if NAT costs and service calls add up, you may be better off buying addresses or losing the customer. You may need to buy some IPv4 addresses to give you time; contact a broker.
You may be surprised how hard it is to root IPv4 out of the system. Don^1t buy anything you can^1t manage over IPv6, including servers and applications. Sorry, vendor, I can^1t buy your cluster, I don^1t have the IPv4 address space to provision it.
Lee
On 7/4/15, 8:09 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Josh Moore" <nanog-bounces@nanog.org<mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org> on behalf of jmoore@atcnetworks.net<mailto:jmoore@atcnetworks.net>> wrote:
Traditional dual stack deployments implement both IPv4 and IPv6 to the CPE. Consider the following:
An ISP is at 90% IPv4 utilization and would like to deploy dual stack with the purpose of allowing their subscriber base to continue to grow regardless of the depletion of the IPv4 space. Current dual stack best practices seem to recommend deploying BOTH IPv4 and IPv6 to every CPE. If this is the case, and BOTH are still required, then how does IPv6 help with the v4 address depletion crisis? Many sites and services would still need legacy IPv4 compatibility. Sure, CGN technology may be a solution but what about applications that need direct IPv4 connectivity without NAT? It seems that there should be a mechanism to enable on-demand and efficient IPv4 address consumption ONLY when needed. My question is this: What, if any, solutions like this exist? If no solution exists then what is the next best thing? What would the overall IPv6 migration strategy and goal be?
Sorry for the length of this email but these are legitimate concerns and while I understand the need for IPv6 and the importance of getting there; I don't understand exactly HOW that can be done considering the immediate issue: IPv4 depletion.
Thanks
Joshua Moore Network Engineer ATC Broadband 912.632.3161
You can still carry the v6 NLRIs in MP-BGP though right? Joshua Moore Network Engineer ATC Broadband 912.632.3161 - O | 912.218.3720 - M From: Mel Beckman [mailto:mel@beckman.org] Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 10:49 AM To: andrew Cc: Lee Howard; Josh Moore; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion MPLS requires an IPv4 core. You can't run an IPv6-only infrastructure because neither CSCO or JNPR have implemented LDP to distribute labels for IPV6 prefixes. -mel via cell On Jul 6, 2015, at 7:15 AM, andrew <andrew@ethernaut.io<mailto:andrew@ethernaut.io>> wrote: Pardon my ignorance - what do you see missing in MPLS in regards to support for IP6? -------- Original message -------- From: Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org<mailto:mel@beckman.org>> Date: 07/06/2015 9:44 AM (GMT-05:00) To: Lee Howard <Lee@asgard.org<mailto:Lee@asgard.org>> Cc: Josh Moore <jmoore@atcnetworks.net<mailto:jmoore@atcnetworks.net>>, nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion And let's all complain to the MPLS working group to get IPv6 support finished up! -mel beckman
On Jul 6, 2015, at 6:27 AM, Lee Howard <Lee@asgard.org<mailto:Lee@asgard.org>> wrote:
Some thoughts. . .
³Native dual-stack² is ³native IPv4 and native IPv6.²
³Dual-stack² might be native, or might by ³native IPv6 plus IPv4 address sharing.²
Your IPv4 address sharing options are CGN, DS-Lite, and MAP. There are operational deployments of all three, in the order given. You need them close enough to your customers that traffic will return over the same path. You can¹t share state among a cluster of boxes, but that¹s not the end of the world; a device failure sometimes causes loss of state. MAP is the hot new thing all the cool kids are doing.
Look to your router and load balancer vendors for devices that do these. CGN is the only one that doesn¹t require updates to the home gateway. The more IPv6 your customers use, the smaller your CGN/AFTR/MAP can be.
Think about how you¹ll position it to customers. It¹s difficult to change a customer¹s service mid-contract. At some point, a customer is no longer profitable: if NAT costs and service calls add up, you may be better off buying addresses or losing the customer. You may need to buy some IPv4 addresses to give you time; contact a broker.
You may be surprised how hard it is to root IPv4 out of the system. Don¹t buy anything you can¹t manage over IPv6, including servers and applications. Sorry, vendor, I can¹t buy your cluster, I don¹t have the IPv4 address space to provision it.
Lee
On 7/4/15, 8:09 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Josh Moore" <nanog-bounces@nanog.org<mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org> on behalf of jmoore@atcnetworks.net<mailto:jmoore@atcnetworks.net>> wrote:
Traditional dual stack deployments implement both IPv4 and IPv6 to the CPE. Consider the following:
An ISP is at 90% IPv4 utilization and would like to deploy dual stack with the purpose of allowing their subscriber base to continue to grow regardless of the depletion of the IPv4 space. Current dual stack best practices seem to recommend deploying BOTH IPv4 and IPv6 to every CPE. If this is the case, and BOTH are still required, then how does IPv6 help with the v4 address depletion crisis? Many sites and services would still need legacy IPv4 compatibility. Sure, CGN technology may be a solution but what about applications that need direct IPv4 connectivity without NAT? It seems that there should be a mechanism to enable on-demand and efficient IPv4 address consumption ONLY when needed. My question is this: What, if any, solutions like this exist? If no solution exists then what is the next best thing? What would the overall IPv6 migration strategy and goal be?
Sorry for the length of this email but these are legitimate concerns and while I understand the need for IPv6 and the importance of getting there; I don't understand exactly HOW that can be done considering the immediate issue: IPv4 depletion.
Thanks
Joshua Moore Network Engineer ATC Broadband 912.632.3161
Yes. But the MPLS nodes must all connect via IPv4. -mel via cell On Jul 6, 2015, at 8:41 AM, Josh Moore <jmoore@atcnetworks.net<mailto:jmoore@atcnetworks.net>> wrote: You can still carry the v6 NLRIs in MP-BGP though right? Joshua Moore Network Engineer ATC Broadband 912.632.3161 - O | 912.218.3720 - M From: Mel Beckman [mailto:mel@beckman.org] Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 10:49 AM To: andrew Cc: Lee Howard; Josh Moore; nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion MPLS requires an IPv4 core. You can't run an IPv6-only infrastructure because neither CSCO or JNPR have implemented LDP to distribute labels for IPV6 prefixes. -mel via cell On Jul 6, 2015, at 7:15 AM, andrew <andrew@ethernaut.io<mailto:andrew@ethernaut.io>> wrote: Pardon my ignorance - what do you see missing in MPLS in regards to support for IP6? -------- Original message -------- From: Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org<mailto:mel@beckman.org>> Date: 07/06/2015 9:44 AM (GMT-05:00) To: Lee Howard <Lee@asgard.org<mailto:Lee@asgard.org>> Cc: Josh Moore <jmoore@atcnetworks.net<mailto:jmoore@atcnetworks.net>>, nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion And let's all complain to the MPLS working group to get IPv6 support finished up! -mel beckman
On Jul 6, 2015, at 6:27 AM, Lee Howard <Lee@asgard.org<mailto:Lee@asgard.org>> wrote:
Some thoughts. . .
^3Native dual-stack^2 is ^3native IPv4 and native IPv6.^2
^3Dual-stack^2 might be native, or might by ^3native IPv6 plus IPv4 address sharing.^2
Your IPv4 address sharing options are CGN, DS-Lite, and MAP. There are operational deployments of all three, in the order given. You need them close enough to your customers that traffic will return over the same path. You can^1t share state among a cluster of boxes, but that^1s not the end of the world; a device failure sometimes causes loss of state. MAP is the hot new thing all the cool kids are doing.
Look to your router and load balancer vendors for devices that do these. CGN is the only one that doesn^1t require updates to the home gateway. The more IPv6 your customers use, the smaller your CGN/AFTR/MAP can be.
Think about how you^1ll position it to customers. It^1s difficult to change a customer^1s service mid-contract. At some point, a customer is no longer profitable: if NAT costs and service calls add up, you may be better off buying addresses or losing the customer. You may need to buy some IPv4 addresses to give you time; contact a broker.
You may be surprised how hard it is to root IPv4 out of the system. Don^1t buy anything you can^1t manage over IPv6, including servers and applications. Sorry, vendor, I can^1t buy your cluster, I don^1t have the IPv4 address space to provision it.
Lee
On 7/4/15, 8:09 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Josh Moore" <nanog-bounces@nanog.org<mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org> on behalf of jmoore@atcnetworks.net<mailto:jmoore@atcnetworks.net>> wrote:
Traditional dual stack deployments implement both IPv4 and IPv6 to the CPE. Consider the following:
An ISP is at 90% IPv4 utilization and would like to deploy dual stack with the purpose of allowing their subscriber base to continue to grow regardless of the depletion of the IPv4 space. Current dual stack best practices seem to recommend deploying BOTH IPv4 and IPv6 to every CPE. If this is the case, and BOTH are still required, then how does IPv6 help with the v4 address depletion crisis? Many sites and services would still need legacy IPv4 compatibility. Sure, CGN technology may be a solution but what about applications that need direct IPv4 connectivity without NAT? It seems that there should be a mechanism to enable on-demand and efficient IPv4 address consumption ONLY when needed. My question is this: What, if any, solutions like this exist? If no solution exists then what is the next best thing? What would the overall IPv6 migration strategy and goal be?
Sorry for the length of this email but these are legitimate concerns and while I understand the need for IPv6 and the importance of getting there; I don't understand exactly HOW that can be done considering the immediate issue: IPv4 depletion.
Thanks
Joshua Moore Network Engineer ATC Broadband 912.632.3161
On 6/Jul/15 16:49, Mel Beckman wrote:
MPLS requires an IPv4 core. You can't run an IPv6-only infrastructure because neither CSCO or JNPR have implemented LDP to distribute labels for IPV6 prefixes.
Not true - Cisco have it in IOS XR since 5.3.0. Juniper expect to start shipping it later in 15. Mark.
That's good to hear! -mel beckman
On Jul 7, 2015, at 9:50 PM, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
On 6/Jul/15 16:49, Mel Beckman wrote: MPLS requires an IPv4 core. You can't run an IPv6-only infrastructure because neither CSCO or JNPR have implemented LDP to distribute labels for IPV6 prefixes.
Not true - Cisco have it in IOS XR since 5.3.0.
Juniper expect to start shipping it later in 15.
Mark.
We added LDP IPv6 support in SR OS 13.0.R1 for Alcatel-Lucent 7x50 platforms earlier this year. Regards, Greg -- Greg Hankins <ghankins@mindspring.com> -----Original Message----- Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 06:50:27 +0200 From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> To: Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org>, andrew <andrew@ethernaut.io> Cc: Josh Moore <jmoore@atcnetworks.net>, "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion On 6/Jul/15 16:49, Mel Beckman wrote:
MPLS requires an IPv4 core. You can't run an IPv6-only infrastructure because neither CSCO or JNPR have implemented LDP to distribute labels for IPV6 prefixes.
Not true - Cisco have it in IOS XR since 5.3.0. Juniper expect to start shipping it later in 15. Mark.
Greg, After investigating what a previous poster said about Cisco and Juniper, I'm getting the feeling that not all major impediments to running MPLS over IPv6-only networks have been addressed. Your comment mentions LDP IPv6 support. Do you now handle all the major gaps identified the the IETF MPLS IPv6 Gap Analysis (RFC7439) from this last January? https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7439#section-3 It seems like their are still gaps in the MPLS spec itself before IPv6 has parity with IPv4 in MPLS. -mel beckman
On Jul 8, 2015, at 8:33 AM, Greg Hankins <ghankins@mindspring.com> wrote:
We added LDP IPv6 support in SR OS 13.0.R1 for Alcatel-Lucent 7x50 platforms earlier this year.
Regards, Greg
-- Greg Hankins <ghankins@mindspring.com>
-----Original Message----- Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 06:50:27 +0200 From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> To: Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org>, andrew <andrew@ethernaut.io> Cc: Josh Moore <jmoore@atcnetworks.net>, "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
On 6/Jul/15 16:49, Mel Beckman wrote: MPLS requires an IPv4 core. You can't run an IPv6-only infrastructure because neither CSCO or JNPR have implemented LDP to distribute labels for IPV6 prefixes.
Not true - Cisco have it in IOS XR since 5.3.0.
Juniper expect to start shipping it later in 15.
Mark.
On 8/Jul/15 17:59, Mel Beckman wrote:
Greg,
After investigating what a previous poster said about Cisco and Juniper, I'm getting the feeling that not all major impediments to running MPLS over IPv6-only networks have been addressed.
Your comment mentions LDP IPv6 support. Do you now handle all the major gaps identified the the IETF MPLS IPv6 Gap Analysis (RFC7439) from this last January?
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7439#section-3
It seems like their are still gaps in the MPLS spec itself before IPv6 has parity with IPv4 in MPLS.
The LDPv6 support is just the control plane portion to get labels assigned to IPv6 addresses. This should get you basic forwarding of encapsulation and forwarding of IPv6 traffic in MPLS. The immediate use-case would be removal of IPv6 BGP routing in the core, if that is your thing. Otherwise, yes, there are still a bunch of MPLS gaps that need to be fixed for those additional services to run natively over an IPv6-only network. Baby steps... Mark.
I think the “THING” that people are starting to worry about is how to deploy a network when you can’t get IPv4 space for it at a reasonable price. Owen
On Jul 8, 2015, at 11:47 , Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
On 8/Jul/15 17:59, Mel Beckman wrote:
Greg,
After investigating what a previous poster said about Cisco and Juniper, I'm getting the feeling that not all major impediments to running MPLS over IPv6-only networks have been addressed.
Your comment mentions LDP IPv6 support. Do you now handle all the major gaps identified the the IETF MPLS IPv6 Gap Analysis (RFC7439) from this last January?
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7439#section-3
It seems like their are still gaps in the MPLS spec itself before IPv6 has parity with IPv4 in MPLS.
The LDPv6 support is just the control plane portion to get labels assigned to IPv6 addresses. This should get you basic forwarding of encapsulation and forwarding of IPv6 traffic in MPLS. The immediate use-case would be removal of IPv6 BGP routing in the core, if that is your thing.
Otherwise, yes, there are still a bunch of MPLS gaps that need to be fixed for those additional services to run natively over an IPv6-only network. Baby steps...
Mark.
Owen, Paying for IPv4 space definitely raises the capital requirements for any new provider startup. It's not so bad right now, when deals are plentiful in the $10k to $20k range for /24s. But when a /24 hits $100K, bootstrapping a new ISP will be impossible. -mel beckman
On Jul 8, 2015, at 12:32 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
I think the “THING” that people are starting to worry about is how to deploy a network when you can’t get IPv4 space for it at a reasonable price.
Owen
On Jul 8, 2015, at 11:47 , Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
On 8/Jul/15 17:59, Mel Beckman wrote: Greg,
After investigating what a previous poster said about Cisco and Juniper, I'm getting the feeling that not all major impediments to running MPLS over IPv6-only networks have been addressed.
Your comment mentions LDP IPv6 support. Do you now handle all the major gaps identified the the IETF MPLS IPv6 Gap Analysis (RFC7439) from this last January?
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7439#section-3
It seems like their are still gaps in the MPLS spec itself before IPv6 has parity with IPv4 in MPLS.
The LDPv6 support is just the control plane portion to get labels assigned to IPv6 addresses. This should get you basic forwarding of encapsulation and forwarding of IPv6 traffic in MPLS. The immediate use-case would be removal of IPv6 BGP routing in the core, if that is your thing.
Otherwise, yes, there are still a bunch of MPLS gaps that need to be fixed for those additional services to run natively over an IPv6-only network. Baby steps...
Mark.
Tell a start-up ISP it'll be $10k - $25k for PI IPs and they'll laugh in your face. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mel Beckman" <mel@beckman.org> To: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2015 2:37:53 PM Subject: Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Owen, Paying for IPv4 space definitely raises the capital requirements for any new provider startup. It's not so bad right now, when deals are plentiful in the $10k to $20k range for /24s. But when a /24 hits $100K, bootstrapping a new ISP will be impossible. -mel beckman
On Jul 8, 2015, at 12:32 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
I think the “THING” that people are starting to worry about is how to deploy a network when you can’t get IPv4 space for it at a reasonable price.
Owen
On Jul 8, 2015, at 11:47 , Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
On 8/Jul/15 17:59, Mel Beckman wrote: Greg,
After investigating what a previous poster said about Cisco and Juniper, I'm getting the feeling that not all major impediments to running MPLS over IPv6-only networks have been addressed.
Your comment mentions LDP IPv6 support. Do you now handle all the major gaps identified the the IETF MPLS IPv6 Gap Analysis (RFC7439) from this last January?
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7439#section-3
It seems like their are still gaps in the MPLS spec itself before IPv6 has parity with IPv4 in MPLS.
The LDPv6 support is just the control plane portion to get labels assigned to IPv6 addresses. This should get you basic forwarding of encapsulation and forwarding of IPv6 traffic in MPLS. The immediate use-case would be removal of IPv6 BGP routing in the core, if that is your thing.
Otherwise, yes, there are still a bunch of MPLS gaps that need to be fixed for those additional services to run natively over an IPv6-only network. Baby steps...
Mark.
On 8/Jul/15 21:32, Owen DeLong wrote:
I think the “THING” that people are starting to worry about is how to deploy a network when you can’t get IPv4 space for it at a reasonable price.
I suppose the issue will become "more real" when you can't get any IPv4 space period. Mark.
On 9 July 2015 at 13:25, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
I suppose the issue will become "more real" when you can't get any IPv4 space period.
Mark.
That will never happen. If you offer me $1000 per IPv4, then I will happily terminate some user contracts and sell their IP space to you... In fact it will never become even that expensive. With a marked price of $10 I am buying IP space for customers as needed and I will include free space in the contracts. If the price went to $100 I would tell all users that they need to pay monthly rent for their IP or alternative, the user would have to accept carrier NAT in some form. And then I would proceed to buy a new house for the money I make by selling address space. There is a ton of address space that is inefficient used. We will be able to buy excess from companies that "create" space by optimizing their existing space. There is a reason we have not seen any rise in the price even after multiple years with depletion in large parts of the world. Regards, Baldur
On 9/Jul/15 14:53, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
That will never happen. If you offer me $1000 per IPv4, then I will happily terminate some user contracts and sell their IP space to you...
In fact it will never become even that expensive. With a marked price of $10 I am buying IP space for customers as needed and I will include free space in the contracts. If the price went to $100 I would tell all users that they need to pay monthly rent for their IP or alternative, the user would have to accept carrier NAT in some form. And then I would proceed to buy a new house for the money I make by selling address space.
There is a ton of address space that is inefficient used. We will be able to buy excess from companies that "create" space by optimizing their existing space. There is a reason we have not seen any rise in the price even after multiple years with depletion in large parts of the world.
In this particular case, I'm not concerned about the next ten years. Predicting what happens between now and then could have a fair degree of accuracy. I'm more concerned about what happens beyond that. I'm not sure I can accurately (even with large error margins) predict what happens then. All that said, I'm not trying to paint myself into that kind of corner. It is 2015, after all... Just don't tell my competitors... Mark.
one word. RFC 1918. Here is an perpetual well of IPv4, packed down, overflowing. manning bmanning@karoshi.com PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102 On 9July2015Thursday, at 6:02, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
On 9/Jul/15 14:53, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
That will never happen. If you offer me $1000 per IPv4, then I will happily terminate some user contracts and sell their IP space to you...
In fact it will never become even that expensive. With a marked price of $10 I am buying IP space for customers as needed and I will include free space in the contracts. If the price went to $100 I would tell all users that they need to pay monthly rent for their IP or alternative, the user would have to accept carrier NAT in some form. And then I would proceed to buy a new house for the money I make by selling address space.
There is a ton of address space that is inefficient used. We will be able to buy excess from companies that "create" space by optimizing their existing space. There is a reason we have not seen any rise in the price even after multiple years with depletion in large parts of the world.
In this particular case, I'm not concerned about the next ten years. Predicting what happens between now and then could have a fair degree of accuracy.
I'm more concerned about what happens beyond that. I'm not sure I can accurately (even with large error margins) predict what happens then.
All that said, I'm not trying to paint myself into that kind of corner. It is 2015, after all... Just don't tell my competitors...
Mark.
Yes, the reason is that we'd never had ARIN turn down a request due to space exhaustion before. In 12 months we'll see the prices will go up significantly. Don't underestimate the demand, which is easily measured via ARIN space allocation reports. That demand rate has very little flexibility, and the businesses asking for /21 and above are willing to pay for the space. It's not the "two guys and a router" startups asking for a mere /23 or /24. These are generally pre-existing businesses or well-funded startups. -mel beckman
On Jul 9, 2015, at 5:53 AM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:
There is a reason we have not seen any rise in the price even after multiple years with depletion in large parts of the world.
On Jul 9, 2015, at 05:53 , Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9 July 2015 at 13:25, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
I suppose the issue will become "more real" when you can't get any IPv4 space period.
Mark.
That will never happen. If you offer me $1000 per IPv4, then I will happily terminate some user contracts and sell their IP space to you…
Eventually, you run out of user contracts to terminate.
In fact it will never become even that expensive. With a marked price of $10 I am buying IP space for customers as needed and I will include free space in the contracts. If the price went to $100 I would tell all users that they need to pay monthly rent for their IP or alternative, the user would have to accept carrier NAT in some form. And then I would proceed to buy a new house for the money I make by selling address space.
Sure, but aren’t your customers going to start demanding IPv6 instead of that at some point? Aren’t they going to start insisting on a service that doesn’t charge per address?
There is a ton of address space that is inefficient used. We will be able to buy excess from companies that "create" space by optimizing their existing space. There is a reason we have not seen any rise in the price even after multiple years with depletion in large parts of the world.
Yes… It’s called “soft landing”… ARIN will be the first region to deplete without significant austerity policies for newcomers to get address space. Owen
Den 09/07/2015 18.08 skrev "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>:
That will never happen. If you offer me $1000 per IPv4, then I will happily terminate some user contracts and sell their IP space to you…
Eventually, you run out of user contracts to terminate.
At $1000 per contract I do not care. I will retire and be happy. Seriously ISPs are often valued by number of active contracts. A typical value might be $100 to $200. The value of an IPv4 address can not go any higher than this because at that point you can buy another company just to get the addresses.
In fact it will never become even that expensive. With a marked price of $10 I am buying IP space for customers as needed and I will include free space in the contracts. If the price went to $100 I would tell all users that they need to pay monthly rent for their IP or alternative, the user would have to accept carrier NAT in some form. And then I would proceed
buy a new house for the money I make by selling address space.
Sure, but aren’t your customers going to start demanding IPv6 instead of
to that at some point? My customers have been demanding IPv6 for some time already.
Aren’t they going to start insisting on a service that doesn’t charge per
address? They will have their free IPv6 and will care less about a non shared IPv4. This will cause the valuation of IPv4 to crash at some point because the demand will disappear.
There is a ton of address space that is inefficient used. We will be
able
to buy excess from companies that "create" space by optimizing their existing space. There is a reason we have not seen any rise in the price even after multiple years with depletion in large parts of the world.
Yes… It’s called “soft landing”… ARIN will be the first region to deplete without significant austerity policies for newcomers to get address space.
RIPE gives you 1k addresses. This is not enough even for two guys and a router. But yes it is a nice token. The big companies have now gone without new space for a while. Just a few months ago I bought 2k addresses at $6 per address. I do not observe any rising tendency in IPv4 pricing. Regards Baldur
participants (9)
-
andrew -
Baldur Norddahl -
Greg Hankins -
Josh Moore -
manning -
Mark Tinka -
Mel Beckman -
Mike Hammett -
Owen DeLong