Re: V6 still not supported
Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
When your ISP starts charging $X/Month for legacy protocol support
Out of interest, how would this come about? - Jared
On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 02:30:26PM +0100, Jared Brown wrote:
Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
When your ISP starts charging $X/Month for legacy protocol support
Out of interest, how would this come about?
It already happens, more along the lines of "Business Class" vs. "Residential Class". Ie. for Residential Class, you may get put onto CGNAT, and have no control over that. While on x level of Business Class, you get to opt out of CGNAT, and potentially even have a static IP address assigned to your connection.
On Mar 25, 2022, at 06:30 , Jared Brown <nanog-isp@mail.com> wrote:
Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
When your ISP starts charging $X/Month for legacy protocol support
Out of interest, how would this come about?
ISPs are facing ever growing costs to continue providing IPv4 services. Likely they will eventually have to start passing those costs along to IPv4-dependent customers. Owen
Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
When your ISP starts charging $X/Month for legacy protocol support
Out of interest, how would this come about?
ISPs are facing ever growing costs to continue providing IPv4 services. Could you please be more specific about which costs you are referring to?
It's not like IP transit providers care if they deliver IPv4 or IPv6 bits to you. - Jared
----- On Mar 30, 2022, at 11:09 AM, Jared Brown nanog-isp@mail.com wrote:
Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
When your ISP starts charging $X/Month for legacy protocol support
Out of interest, how would this come about?
ISPs are facing ever growing costs to continue providing IPv4 services. Could you please be more specific about which costs you are referring to?
It's not like IP transit providers care if they deliver IPv4 or IPv6 bits to you.
Have you priced blocks of IPv4 addresses lately? ISPs expand over time and need more IPs for more customers. -Randy
Randy Carpenter wrote:
Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: When your ISP starts charging $X/Month for legacy protocol support
Out of interest, how would this come about?
ISPs are facing ever growing costs to continue providing IPv4 services. Could you please be more specific about which costs you are referring to?
It's not like IP transit providers care if they deliver IPv4 or IPv6 bits to you.
Have you priced blocks of IPv4 addresses lately? IPv4 address blocks have a fixed one-time cost, not an ongoing $X/month cost.
- Jared
----- On Mar 30, 2022, at 12:36 PM, Jared Brown nanog-isp@mail.com wrote:
Randy Carpenter wrote:
Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: When your ISP starts charging $X/Month for legacy protocol support
Out of interest, how would this come about?
ISPs are facing ever growing costs to continue providing IPv4 services. Could you please be more specific about which costs you are referring to?
It's not like IP transit providers care if they deliver IPv4 or IPv6 bits to you.
Have you priced blocks of IPv4 addresses lately? IPv4 address blocks have a fixed one-time cost, not an ongoing $X/month cost.
- Jared
How, exactly, would you propose a company recoup the cost? -Randy
Randy Carpenter wrote:
> Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > When your ISP starts charging $X/Month for legacy protocol support
Out of interest, how would this come about?
ISPs are facing ever growing costs to continue providing IPv4 services. Could you please be more specific about which costs you are referring to?
It's not like IP transit providers care if they deliver IPv4 or IPv6 bits to you.
Have you priced blocks of IPv4 addresses lately? IPv4 address blocks have a fixed one-time cost, not an ongoing $X/month cost.
- Jared
How, exactly, would you propose a company recoup the cost? There are many options, depending on the commercial relationship between ISP and customer.
The ISP may simply charge a single one-time fee per IPv4. The customer may choose to bring their own IPv4 blocks as many BGP customers do. The ISP may chose not to charge separately per IPv4, as having those IPs enables them to charge $Y/month for Internet service. And so on and so forth. Furthermore IPv4 addresses do not wear out. IPs can be reused upon customer churn and excess blocks can be sold, if need be. - Jared
On Mar 30, 2022, at 10:09 , Jared Brown <nanog-isp@mail.com> wrote:
Randy Carpenter wrote:
>> Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: >> When your ISP starts charging $X/Month for legacy protocol support > > Out of interest, how would this come about?
ISPs are facing ever growing costs to continue providing IPv4 services. Could you please be more specific about which costs you are referring to?
It's not like IP transit providers care if they deliver IPv4 or IPv6 bits to you.
Have you priced blocks of IPv4 addresses lately? IPv4 address blocks have a fixed one-time cost, not an ongoing $X/month cost.
- Jared
How, exactly, would you propose a company recoup the cost? There are many options, depending on the commercial relationship between ISP and customer.
The ISP may simply charge a single one-time fee per IPv4.
The customer may choose to bring their own IPv4 blocks as many BGP customers do.
The ISP may chose not to charge separately per IPv4, as having those IPs enables them to charge $Y/month for Internet service.
And so on and so forth.
Furthermore IPv4 addresses do not wear out. IPs can be reused upon customer churn and excess blocks can be sold, if need be.
- Jared
A growing number of providers are charging $x/IPv4 address/month as a way to recoup that cost. I expect that trend will continue. While it may (MAY[1]) be a one-time fixed costs to the provider, it’s not likely to stay that way for the customers going forward. Owen [1] Modulo RIR fees and the possibility that due to capital constraints, said ISP may have chosen to lease addresses rather than purchase them.
Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
I would expect the trend to become that ISP's refuse to accommodate 3rd party vendors shenanigans to the point where it hampers their operations or to the point where it cost them more to do so.
$ISP_1 refuses to accommodate Sony’s shenanigans… Three possible outcomes: The three possible outcomes assume status quo is maintained.
However, if ISP A makes a business decision to not accommodate 3rd party shenanigans and modifies policies accordingly, then we have a new equilibrium. Outcome 1 is maintained: Customer churns off ISP A. Everybody wins. Outcome 2 is no longer a single outcome, but rather several: a. Customer is upsold to gaming package which includes a static IP. b. Customer returns Playstation and buys Xbox instead. c. Customer declines gaming package, but continues to bother customer service. Customer is directed to 3rd party customer support. Further customer contact is handled via self service portals and other low cost customer service channels. d. Customer terminates contract and goes offline. Outcome 3 is resolved by ISP A telling returning customers that service at that address is only available if ordered together with the gaming package.
All of this, of course, becomes an effective non-issue if both $ISP and Sony deploy IPv6 and get rid of the stupid NAT tricks. Well yes...
... but why would Sony do that when they have so conveniently externalized all costs? - Jared
There is also Customer contacts ACCC in Australia and complains that Sony is not supplying a working product and Sony gets fined and instructed to change their rules about customers behind CGNATs.
On 7 Apr 2022, at 03:24, Jared Brown <nanog-isp@mail.com> wrote:
Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
I would expect the trend to become that ISP's refuse to accommodate 3rd party vendors shenanigans to the point where it hampers their operations or to the point where it cost them more to do so.
$ISP_1 refuses to accommodate Sony’s shenanigans… Three possible outcomes: The three possible outcomes assume status quo is maintained.
However, if ISP A makes a business decision to not accommodate 3rd party shenanigans and modifies policies accordingly, then we have a new equilibrium.
Outcome 1 is maintained: Customer churns off ISP A. Everybody wins.
Outcome 2 is no longer a single outcome, but rather several: a. Customer is upsold to gaming package which includes a static IP. b. Customer returns Playstation and buys Xbox instead. c. Customer declines gaming package, but continues to bother customer service. Customer is directed to 3rd party customer support. Further customer contact is handled via self service portals and other low cost customer service channels. d. Customer terminates contract and goes offline.
Outcome 3 is resolved by ISP A telling returning customers that service at that address is only available if ordered together with the gaming package.
All of this, of course, becomes an effective non-issue if both $ISP and Sony deploy IPv6 and get rid of the stupid NAT tricks. Well yes...
... but why would Sony do that when they have so conveniently externalized all costs?
- Jared
-- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 18:36:24 +0200 Jared Brown <nanog-isp@mail.com> wrote:
IPv4 address blocks have a fixed one-time cost, not an ongoing $X/month cost.
From an RIR perhaps, but when demand changes for your available pool, what happens downstream? When you rent servers from providers, unless you bring your own address space, the invoice includes the cost of one or more IPv4 addresses, often with the option to rent additional IPv4 addresses on a per month basis. Just this week I received notice of a $2/VM price increase from one provider. They stated "demand for IP address has caused a shortage and increased prices". John
On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 1:21 PM John Kristoff <jtk@dataplane.org> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 18:36:24 +0200 Jared Brown <nanog-isp@mail.com> wrote:
IPv4 address blocks have a fixed one-time cost, not an ongoing $X/month cost.
From an RIR perhaps, but when demand changes for your available pool, what happens downstream?
When you rent servers from providers, unless you bring your own address space, the invoice includes the cost of one or more IPv4 addresses, often with the option to rent additional IPv4 addresses on a per month basis. Just this week I received notice of a $2/VM price increase from one provider. They stated "demand for IP address has caused a shortage and increased prices".
also, you know.. it's a monetizable asset now, so ... why not just charge rent? :) I mean, in like 12 months you can pay for 2 ips if you charge 2$/month / ip.
It is not a fixed one-time cost ... because if your users are gamers behind PSP, Sony is blocking IPv4 ranges behind CGN. So, you keep rotating your addresses until all then are blocked, then you need to transfer more IPv4 addresses ... So under this perspective, in many cases it makes more sense to NOT invest in CGN, and use that money to transfer up-front more IPv4 addresses at once, you will get a better price than if you transfer them every few months. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 30/3/22, 18:38, "NANOG en nombre de Jared Brown" <nanog-bounces+jordi.palet=consulintel.es@nanog.org en nombre de nanog-isp@mail.com> escribió: Randy Carpenter wrote: > >> >> Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > >> >> When your ISP starts charging $X/Month for legacy protocol support > >> > > >> > Out of interest, how would this come about? > >> > >> ISPs are facing ever growing costs to continue providing IPv4 services. > > Could you please be more specific about which costs you are referring to? > > > > It's not like IP transit providers care if they deliver IPv4 or IPv6 bits to > > you. > > Have you priced blocks of IPv4 addresses lately? IPv4 address blocks have a fixed one-time cost, not an ongoing $X/month cost. - Jared ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
On Mar 30, 2022, at 08:09 , Jared Brown <nanog-isp@mail.com> wrote:
Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
When your ISP starts charging $X/Month for legacy protocol support
Out of interest, how would this come about?
ISPs are facing ever growing costs to continue providing IPv4 services. Could you please be more specific about which costs you are referring to?
Costs of address acquisition Costs of CGNAT systems in lieu of address acquisition costs Costs of increasing support calls due to IPv4 life support measures in other networks. etc.
It's not like IP transit providers care if they deliver IPv4 or IPv6 bits to you.
True, but adding customers requires additional addresses at some point. IPv6 addresses are cheap compared to IPv4 addresses. Owen
Hi, Owen: The EzIP addresses (the 240/4 netblock) are proposed to be treated as "natural resources" without a price tag (or, "free") following the old-fashioned PSTN discipline, instead of "personal properties" for auction according to the current Internet way. Regards, Abe (2022-04-01 09:35) On 2022-03-31 16:09, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
On Mar 30, 2022, at 08:09 , Jared Brown<nanog-isp@mail.com> wrote:
Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
When your ISP starts charging $X/Month for legacy protocol support Out of interest, how would this come about? ISPs are facing ever growing costs to continue providing IPv4 services. Could you please be more specific about which costs you are referring to? Costs of address acquisition Costs of CGNAT systems in lieu of address acquisition costs Costs of increasing support calls due to IPv4 life support measures in other networks. etc.
It's not like IP transit providers care if they deliver IPv4 or IPv6 bits to you. True, but adding customers requires additional addresses at some point. IPv6 addresses are cheap compared to IPv4 addresses.
Owen
-- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: When your ISP starts charging $X/Month for legacy protocol support
Out of interest, how would this come about?
ISPs are facing ever growing costs to continue providing IPv4 services. Could you please be more specific about which costs you are referring to?
Costs of address acquisition Costs of CGNAT systems in lieu of address acquisition costs Costs of increasing support calls due to IPv4 life support measures in other networks. etc.
It's not like IP transit providers care if they deliver IPv4 or IPv6 bits to you.
True, but adding customers requires additional addresses at some point. IPv6 addresses are cheap compared to IPv4 addresses. As an aside, all this demonstrates quite well one of the impediments to accelerated IPv6 adoption:
None of these costs apply to parties not growing or ones that are only growing withing their existing IPv4 allocation. The status quo does not promote IPv6 adoption, which is obviously a problem since transitioning to IPv6-only requires all parties to be aboard. I'll even add that there is a perverse incentive for ISPs and others to delay IPv6 adoption in certain segments. As there is a scarcity of IPv4, ISPs can charge a premium for access to IPv4 addresses, something you cannot do with IPv6. Furthermore as IPv4 blocks are acting like an appreciating asset, there is both an incentive to acquire more, regardless of need, and to hoard what you have, even if you don't need it. For cloud providers your IPv4 blocks become your moat. - Jared
Hi, Jared: 1) " For cloud providers your IPv4 blocks become your moat. ": It is interesting that your closing statement summarizing the current tactics of keeping customers captive and fending against competition mirrors well with the "Towers of Babel" metaphor of the ancient days mentioned by Christian a couple days' ago. That is, the cyberspace "Towers" are controlled virtually by multi-national businesses that extend far beyond conventional geographical / political borders. It exceeds the comprehension of most people. So, we must realize this situation and stop promoting such. Regards, Abe (2022-04-04 09:53) On 2022-04-04 06:01, Jared Brown wrote:
Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: When your ISP starts charging $X/Month for legacy protocol support Out of interest, how would this come about? ISPs are facing ever growing costs to continue providing IPv4 services. Could you please be more specific about which costs you are referring to? Costs of address acquisition Costs of CGNAT systems in lieu of address acquisition costs Costs of increasing support calls due to IPv4 life support measures in other networks. etc.
It's not like IP transit providers care if they deliver IPv4 or IPv6 bits to you. True, but adding customers requires additional addresses at some point. IPv6 addresses are cheap compared to IPv4 addresses. As an aside, all this demonstrates quite well one of the impediments to accelerated IPv6 adoption:
None of these costs apply to parties not growing or ones that are only growing withing their existing IPv4 allocation.
The status quo does not promote IPv6 adoption, which is obviously a problem since transitioning to IPv6-only requires all parties to be aboard.
I'll even add that there is a perverse incentive for ISPs and others to delay IPv6 adoption in certain segments. As there is a scarcity of IPv4, ISPs can charge a premium for access to IPv4 addresses, something you cannot do with IPv6. Furthermore as IPv4 blocks are acting like an appreciating asset, there is both an incentive to acquire more, regardless of need, and to hoard what you have, even if you don't need it. For cloud providers your IPv4 blocks become your moat.
- Jared
-- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
participants (9)
-
Abraham Y. Chen -
Christopher Morrow -
Doug McIntyre -
Jared Brown -
John Kristoff -
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ -
Mark Andrews -
Owen DeLong -
Randy Carpenter