FWIW - Comcast isn't charging for native connectivity to residential users. /TJ On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Seth Mattinen <sethm@rollernet.us> 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

By end user I mean hosting clients (cloud, collocation, shared, dedicated, VPS, etc.) of any sort. For example you have clients that would need....say /24 for their dedicated server. If you charge a $1.00/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.cutler@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." <otis@ocosa.com> wrote:

Anyone charging end users for IPv6 space yet? :p

<snip/> 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. End users want working connectivity, not jargon. James R. Cutler james.cutler@consultant.com

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 connectivity (routers, wires, management) far exceeds the cost of addressing. Given the quantity of numbers available for IP addressing, it is does not make economic sense to even construct a billing mechanism for IPv6 addressing beyond those of the LIRs, RIRs, etc. Purchase IPv6 connectivity includes the assumption of IPv6 addressing included. On Aug 3, 2012, at 7:32 PM, "Otis L. Surratt, Jr." <otis@ocosa.com> wrote:

By end user I mean hosting clients (cloud, collocation, shared, dedicated, VPS, etc.) of any sort. For example you have clients that would need....say /24 for their dedicated server. If you charge a $1.00/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.cutler@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." <otis@ocosa.com> wrote:

...

Anyone charging end users for IPv6 space yet? :p

<snip/> 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. End users want working connectivity, not jargon.

James R. Cutler james.cutler@consultant.com

On Aug 3, 2012, at 21:05 , "Otis L. Surratt, Jr." <otis@ocosa.com> wrote:

I was thinking about End User in a sense of one to simply consume a product or a service offered by a service provider. However, I should have left room for those that are assigned GUA space by a service provider and reassign space to their end users. (i.e. Allocated /48 and reassign /64 or /56)

That shouldn't happen... If you are acting as an LIR, you should be getting at least a /32 and you should be assigning at least a /48 to your end users.

I do agree that the infrastructure and management costs out way the costs of provider independent space. I agree it would be extremely difficult to setup some sort of fee for any prefix size in IPv6.

Then it's fair to say the approach should be simply to chalk the lose in IPv4 revenue and move on. It's not a big concern for us. I was just curious as to the large providers that make extra money off those wanting more IPv4 addresses.

Is it really a loss? If you're doing things right, IPv4 is costing you more and more and more money every year. When your IPv4 revenue goes away, so should your IPv4 costs. Owen

-----Original Message----- From: Cutler James R [mailto:james.cutler@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 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 connectivity (routers, wires, management) far exceeds the cost of addressing. Given the quantity of numbers available for IP addressing, it is does not make economic sense to even construct a billing mechanism for IPv6 addressing beyond those of the LIRs, RIRs, etc. Purchase IPv6 connectivity includes the assumption of IPv6 addressing included.

On Aug 3, 2012, at 7:32 PM, "Otis L. Surratt, Jr." <otis@ocosa.com> wrote:

...

By end user I mean hosting clients (cloud, collocation, shared, dedicated, VPS, etc.) of any sort. For example you have clients that would need....say /24 for their dedicated server. If you charge a $1.00/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.cutler@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." <otis@ocosa.com> wrote:

...

Anyone charging end users for IPv6 space yet? :p

<snip/> 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. End users want working connectivity, not jargon.

James R. Cutler james.cutler@consultant.com

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. <otis@ocosa.com> 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 assignments? 2. Are you charging anything? 3. Is the cost built into the service? 4. Do you assign IPv6 space to end user and charge admin fee?

Take care,

Otis

IPv6 users cost me less money (CGN resources), i wish i had a business method for giving them discounts and meaningful incentives for using IPv6.

Today, my retail mobile phones users can have 1 NAT'd IPv4 address or 2^64 public IPv6 addresses + NAT64 to reach IPv4 destinations. Most don't use the IPv6 address option yet :(

But the number of folks electing to use IPv6 is increasing with more phones available (4 Androids now support HSPA+ IPv6) and more IPv6 awareness

CB

You must not charge for the addresses at all, they are not yours, you can't sell them.

do i pay for them?

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 a person can own an integer.

IPv6 missed a great chance of doing away with all the central waterfall trickle-down space distribution. Luckily, /64 looks like large enough to bypass that by offering address space sufficiently large while co-existable with legacy addressing and routing. I hope eventually somebody will start tinkering with mesh radios which also have GPS 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.

On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 10:59:09AM -0500, Jimmy Hess wrote:

On 8/4/12, Eugen Leitl <eugen@leitl.org> 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 interesting. I wonder how do you achieve full scale software testing for a mesh networking platform efficiently?

The Serval people do physical testing in the lab and the field. Of course, their scale is very small. You'd want to push most traffic through regular IPv6 Internet and only everything else through the mesh which doesn't have direct line of sight or fiber connectivity. This can be impemented as an abstract layer presenting a unified view, which uses VPN tunnels (each router node would not need to maintain many, even modest connectivites would result in very few hops) over IPv6 Internet just as Tor or I2P do it today. The penalty would be not that bad, given that you're not doing any deliberate traffic remixing/onion routing. You can prototype something like that quite easily based on CyanogenMod with IPv6, OpenVPN or tinc, gpsd, Serval, (maybe cjdns https://raw.github.com/cjdelisle/cjdns/master/rfcs/Whitepaper.md as well?) and some glue to tie it all together.

Do any of the virtual machine monitors Xen, KVM, etc support an emulated 802.11n/other radio device that allows you to configure "Emulated location and geography" for each virtual node, to test various protocols and implementations across p2p wireless meshes by simulating realistic connectivity performance?

Very good point. I'm not aware of simulators which can do that on a very large scale (millions, billions to trillions of nodes).

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, as an end user. The most natural approach is where addresses are derived from constraints, and address collisions are identical to physical space collisions. No two nodes can occupy the same space. By the time you're beyond these 2^24 lat/long resolution IPv6 is probably on its last legs anyway, and there's way to do renumbering with more bits, at the very least.

...

Luckily, /64 looks like large enough to bypass that by offering address space sufficiently large while co-existable with legacy addressing and routing.

Why on earth would you be messing around within /64? It should be easy enough to get a /48 (it certainly is now).

It's a lowest common denominator, at least as long the ISPs are playing by the rules. If end users conspire to use a new addressing scheme bypassing the ISP infrastructure as the crow flies, a freely modyfiable address field within your ISP-assigned address space is the best label you can hope for.

...

I hope eventually somebody will start tinkering with mesh radios which also have GPS 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.

That could be an interesting project. Limiting it to a /64 still doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I'm actually glad it's a /64. MAC space is a lot more cramped, and that information doesn't travel at all far.

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 wants their address to reflect the exact coordinates of where the box is located.

Routing efficiency and anonymity are mutually exclusive. Apart from geoip databases triangulation via time of flight will nail you down in space in any case. Anonymization should be a function of an extra layer, just as Tor and I2P etc. are doing it for TCP/IP.

Also, any such scheme would depend on defining an arbitrary "minimum" sized box and ignores the possibility of needing many addresses for the same physical box containing multiple virtual nodes.

You cannot have two physical switches occupying the same space. 128 bits is quite enough to physically address each cubic micron in 1/3rd of Earth volume.

It sounds great in theory until you actually compare it to the real world.

IP addresses are not physical addresses and trying to

/64 is enough to abuse parts of IPv6 to encode physical coordinates.

correlate them only leads to artificial limitations and other problems.

Interesting. I see the current IPv4/IPv6 model full of artificial limitations that go away if you remove the centralistic governance model.

...

...

...

Luckily, /64 looks like large enough to bypass that by offering address space sufficiently large while co-existable with legacy addressing and routing.

Why on earth would you be messing around within /64? It should be easy enough to get a /48 (it certainly is now).

It's a lowest common denominator, at least as long the ISPs are playing by the rules. If end users conspire to use a new addressing scheme bypassing the ISP infrastructure as the crow flies, a freely modyfiable address field within your ISP-assigned address space is the best label you can hope for.

Uh, good luck with that.

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 hope eventually somebody will start tinkering with mesh radios which also have GPS 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.

That could be an interesting project. Limiting it to a /64 still doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I'm actually glad it's a /64. MAC space is a lot more cramped, and that information doesn't travel at all far.

You misunderstand... I'm suggesting a /48 (65,536 /64s), not a /80 (48 bits to mess around with).

You can't have the same /48 getting routed to random end users all over the world. But each of these users can use the local /64 as scratch space that will be preserved as it travels across IPv6 Internet.

On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 04:00:18PM -0000, 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 people that think ad hoc meshes are a fabulous liberating technology and the people who understand how they work and what their limitatations are.

Absolutely accurate observation.

As a way to bring some sort of service to unserved areas, they're interesting. As a substitute for a real network, they're not.

By its nature, the wireless ad hoc are at best good for more or less understandable audio calls in a tight codec or text message (or email) delivery. Even so, in current systems the scaling is limited by admin traffic chatter. The interesting part is how well would the newer protocols work if the wireless links were substituted by reliable >1 GBit/s connections.