Charging for IPv6
Initially those transit providers and ISPs that do offer IPv6 transit will be able to charge for this service as it will be a premium value add. However I can't see this business model being able to last for more than 6 years (through to 2012), and possibly only three years. After this point in time I expect IPv6 deployment will be standard, and will no longer be a premium service offering - it will be the standard offering, like IPv4 is today. Once IPv4 has become exhausted and you can't actually give a customer an IPv4 address then you definitely wont be able to charge more for IPv6 - otherwise the customer will walk. So do providers start implementing slowly now, and recoup some of their investment while they can, or wait till they are forced to do the upgrades and are not able to recoup any of their "new" investment. Rhetorical question.
To me it's just like QoS. If you need it, you pay more for it. Maybe one day it will be standard, but at the moment it's a 'value add' IPv6 is the same. Philip D'Ath wrote:
Initially those transit providers and ISPs that do offer IPv6 transit will be able to charge for this service as it will be a premium value add. However I can’t see this business model being able to last for more than 6 years (through to 2012), and possibly only three years.
After this point in time I expect IPv6 deployment will be standard, and will no longer be a premium service offering – it will be the standard offering, like IPv4 is today. Once IPv4 has become exhausted and you can’t actually give a customer an IPv4 address then you definitely wont be able to charge more for IPv6 – otherwise the customer will walk.
So do providers start implementing slowly now, and recoup some of their investment while they can, or wait till they are forced to do the upgrades and are not able to recoup any of their “new” investment. Rhetorical question.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
Initially those transit providers and ISPs that do offer IPv6 transit will be able to charge for this service as it will be a premium value add. However I can't see this business model being able to last for more than 6 years (through to 2012), and possibly only three years.
After this point in time I expect IPv6 deployment will be standard, and will no longer be a premium service offering - it will be the standard offering, like IPv4 is today. Once IPv4 has become exhausted and you can't actually give a customer an IPv4 address then you definitely wont be able to charge more for IPv6 - otherwise the customer will walk.
So do providers start implementing slowly now, and recoup some of
Agreed. The difference being a provider will always be able to sell QoS. A provider will not always be able to sell IPv4. -----Original Message----- From: Dean Pemberton [mailto:nznog(a)deanpemberton.com] Sent: Wednesday, 29 November 2006 11:59 p.m. To: Philip D'Ath Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: [nznog] Charging for IPv6 To me it's just like QoS. If you need it, you pay more for it. Maybe one day it will be standard, but at the moment it's a 'value add' IPv6 is the same. Philip D'Ath wrote: their
investment while they can, or wait till they are forced to do the upgrades and are not able to recoup any of their "new" investment. Rhetorical question.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
On 30/11/2006, at 12:04 AM, Philip D'Ath wrote:
Agreed. The difference being a provider will always be able to sell QoS. A provider will not always be able to sell IPv4.
Why not? The bane of most Telco's is how to _stop_ selling legacy products. It's hard for them because they sell so much of them. I don't see it being any different for IPv4. It's been an interesting few threads on IPv6 the past few days and given all the excitement I find it odd that nobody has mentioned that http://v6ix.nzix.net/peers.html returns a 404. Oh, and just to keep everyone honest, an excerpt from the rs1- v6.wix.net.nz LG... :) Neighbor V AS MsgRcvd MsgSent TblVer InQ OutQ Up/Down State/PfxRcd 2001:7fa:3:ca07::77 4 9483 0 0 0 0 0 never Active 2001:7fa:3:ca07::1ee 4 23730 0 0 0 0 0 never Active Seems to me that's there many complaining about the lack of interest in IPv6 and even more pontificating about what needs to happen to ensure IPv6 takes off, but a distinct lack of people actually trying to do something about it. Jonny.
On 29-Nov-2006, at 06:44, Jonny Martin wrote:
Oh, and just to keep everyone honest, an excerpt from the rs1- v6.wix.net.nz LG... :)
Neighbor V AS MsgRcvd MsgSent TblVer InQ OutQ Up/Down State/PfxRcd 2001:7fa:3:ca07::77 4 9483 0 0 0 0 0 never Active 2001:7fa:3:ca07::1ee 4 23730 0 0 0 0 0 never Active
Seems to me that's there many complaining about the lack of interest in IPv6 and even more pontificating about what needs to happen to ensure IPv6 takes off, but a distinct lack of people actually trying to do something about it.
Ah, you were looking in the wrong city. jabley(a)r1.akl1> show bgp summary | match 2001:7fa: 2001:7fa:4:c0cb::9a03 9560 237873 237767 0 4 4w2d12h Establ 2001:7fa:4:c0cb::9a6c 17435 237851 237783 0 4 4w2d12h Establ 2001:7fa:4:c0cb::9a75 18119 87965 87937 0 4 4w2d12h Establ jabley(a)r1.akl1> People in Wellington are just slackers. :-) Joe
Joe Abley wrote:
On 29-Nov-2006, at 06:44, Jonny Martin wrote:
<snip>
2001:7fa:3:ca07::1ee 4 23730 0 0 0 0 0 never Active
People in Wellington are just slackers. :-)
Especially that AS23730 guy! ;) Joe, do you have any interesting stats on the number of v6 queries observed by the F servers, and in particular the servers in Auckland? aj.
On 29-Nov-2006, at 09:02, Alastair Johnson wrote:
Joe Abley wrote:
On 29-Nov-2006, at 06:44, Jonny Martin wrote: <snip>
2001:7fa:3:ca07::1ee 4 23730 0 0 0 0 0 never Active People in Wellington are just slackers. :-)
Especially that AS23730 guy! ;)
Joe, do you have any interesting stats on the number of v6 queries observed by the F servers, and in particular the servers in Auckland?
Note that there's no production reason for anybody to ever talk to F on its v6 address (2001:500::1035) at this point in time, since there's no AAAA RR for F in the ROOT-SERVERS.NET zone, and no AAAA glue for F in the root zone. So I would expect the vast majority of traffic directed at F to be curious pings. I just checked the DSC stats for F published by OARC, but I don't see graphs which separate queries by v4/v6 transport, so apologies for the lack of exciting attachments. Joe
I just checked the DSC stats for F published by OARC, but I don't see graphs which separate queries by v4/v6 transport, so apologies for the lack of exciting attachments.
What percentage of queries against the F Root are AAAA vs A queries? Presumably this would give us some idea of what proportion of v6 capable hosts there are? (although not necessarily what proportion are v6 enabled).
On 29-Nov-2006, at 17:54, Perry Lorier wrote:
I just checked the DSC stats for F published by OARC, but I don't see graphs which separate queries by v4/v6 transport, so apologies for the lack of exciting attachments.
What percentage of queries against the F Root are AAAA vs A queries? Presumably this would give us some idea of what proportion of v6 capable hosts there are? (although not necessarily what proportion are v6 enabled).
A rough eyeball of the DSC stats for the last day or so seems to indicate a little over 50% A queries and about 10% AAAA. Joe
Joe Abley wrote:
On 29-Nov-2006, at 17:54, Perry Lorier wrote:
I just checked the DSC stats for F published by OARC, but I don't see graphs which separate queries by v4/v6 transport, so apologies for the lack of exciting attachments. What percentage of queries against the F Root are AAAA vs A queries? Presumably this would give us some idea of what proportion of v6 capable hosts there are? (although not necessarily what proportion are v6 enabled).
A rough eyeball of the DSC stats for the last day or so seems to indicate a little over 50% A queries and about 10% AAAA.
So if we assume that the vast majority of the AAAA requests fail, and therefore are reissued as a A query. So, 1/5th of the people using the New Zealand Internet are currently using software that supports IPv6 today. I suspect a large portion of the other 4/5ths are Windows XP SP2 users which could enable IPv6, but it's not enabled by default.
Perry Lorier wrote:
So if we assume that the vast majority of the AAAA requests fail, and therefore are reissued as a A query. So, 1/5th of the people using the New Zealand Internet are currently using software that supports IPv6 today.
I suspect a large portion of the other 4/5ths are Windows XP SP2 users which could enable IPv6, but it's not enabled by default.
That kind of implies that if all those Windows users were to turn on the relevant hooks in XP then it would all burst into life. Perhaps Vista will have it on by default and everything will just start working. (:-) But we know that's not the issue - it's the routers, the DNS and all the other infrastructure stuff where it's either not available or costs a whole heap more. And I suspect that there's a large number of "Networking Professionals" who, having barely got to grips with the transition from Class A, B and C addresses to CIDR format, will find IPv6 four times as hard (or is that 2^96 times harder?). So we're back to "Who pays?" again! For training and new hardware. Personally, I think the two main benefits touted for IPv6: 1) Talking to the US military 2) Getting more traffic from people in China and Korea - I think I get quite enough already seem pretty uncompelling.
That kind of implies that if all those Windows users were to turn on the relevant hooks in XP then it would all burst into life. Perhaps Vista will have it on by default and everything will just start working. (:-)
Vista does apparently enable v6 by default. If it can't get a native v6 address but it has a globally routable (ie non rfc1918, etc) v4 address it will use 6to4 and tunnel IPv6 over IPv4. If it can't get a native v4 or v6 address it will use Teredo and tunnel IPv6 over UDP over IPv4 from behind NAT to get a realworld IPv6 address. This suggests that when(if?) the majority of people are using Vista then they will have at least one real world, globally scoped IPv6 address on their machine, which applications can (if they want) use.
But we know that's not the issue - it's the routers, the DNS and all the other infrastructure stuff where it's either not available or costs a whole heap more.
For native IPv6 then yes, this is all needed. To use tunneled v6 you need to be able to find other v6 endpoints via DNS, but that's about all you need.
And I suspect that there's a large number of "Networking Professionals" who, having barely got to grips with the transition from Class A, B and C addresses to CIDR format, will find IPv6 four times as hard (or is that 2^96 times harder?).
IPv6 does do a lot of things subtly differently. People will need to be trained. If people on this list don't know what a "router advertisement" is in the world of v6, they may find things very hard going if they discover they have to roll out v6 in a hurry.
So we're back to "Who pays?" again! For training and new hardware.
Who pays for v4 training and hardware at the moment? Why won't they pay for v6 training and hardware if/when IPv6 becomes reality?
Perry Lorier wrote:
Andy Linton wrote:
That kind of implies that if all those Windows users were to turn on the relevant hooks in XP then it would all burst into life. Perhaps Vista will have it on by default and everything will just start working. (:-)
Vista does apparently enable v6 by default. If it can't get a native v6 address but it has a globally routable (ie non rfc1918, etc) v4 address it will use 6to4 and tunnel IPv6 over IPv4. If it can't get a native v4 or v6 address it will use Teredo and tunnel IPv6 over UDP over IPv4 from behind NAT to get a realworld IPv6 address.
This suggests that when(if?) the majority of people are using Vista then they will have at least one real world, globally scoped IPv6 address on their machine, which applications can (if they want) use.
This brings me to ask the question of, "What will happen when this is deployed to the customers who complain about lousy performance?". If you're having to tunnel to some random remote gateway on the Internet, which is 200ms away from you, and 200ms away from the content, suddenly your performance becomes [even] worse. Could we see ISP helpdesks suggesting disabling v6? Or would we see this as an encouraging sign and more 6to4 and Teredo gateways deployed? I know which my money (20c, Australian) is sitting on right now ;).
So we're back to "Who pays?" again! For training and new hardware.
Who pays for v4 training and hardware at the moment? Why won't they pay for v6 training and hardware if/when IPv6 becomes reality?
The customers - either directly or indirectly. Until the customers push it to be a reality [by paying], there isn't a huge amount of drive to learn or build it. As Steve and Dean have pointed out, resource goes where the profit is. Perhaps a new IPv6 guide for managers and telcos? 1. Deploy v6. 2. ???? <-- probably what the customers will do! 3. Profit! aj. -- ipv4 and atm. yeah.
So, engaging in some very wild speculation, lets assume that: Microsoft Vista ships with Teredo tunnelling support for IPv6 and is mildly successful, and Large service providers start supporting IPv6 (to support customers in Asia, on Comcast and some mobile networks), and Teredo servers are sufficiently available. In this case traffic from customers with Vista to those service providers is IPv6 tunnelled in IPv4. If that became a significant proportion of the traffic, would it influence the business case for natively supporting IPv6? Richard.
In this case traffic from customers with Vista to those service providers is IPv6 tunnelled in IPv4. If that became a significant proportion of the traffic, would it influence the business case for natively supporting IPv6?
But what consumer level DSL Routers have native IPV6 support (Cisco and Allied Telesyn DSL routers ( which do support it ) I don't see as consumer level) Thanks Craig Talking for Myself
But what consumer level DSL Routers have native IPV6 support (Cisco and Allied Telesyn DSL routers ( which do support it ) I don't see as consumer level)
Presumably any of the Linux based DSL routers would be able to support IPv6. Any DSL modem (eg anything that uses USB or PCI) would be able to support v6 (as it would be the host OS's responsibility to deal with the network protocols).
Perry Lorier wrote:
Presumably any of the Linux based DSL routers would be able to support IPv6. Any DSL modem (eg anything that uses USB or PCI) would be able to support v6 (as it would be the host OS's responsibility to deal with the network protocols).
Definitely, for the last six months I was using XH1137 from DSE to do exactly this with a v6 connection delivered over UBS from my ISP. It worked brilliantly until Telecom "unleashed" the copper rate limits on my line at which point the PCI modem wasn't able to reliably keep sync anymore. So I've had to resort back to an external modem for the time being, which unfortunately means I no longer have v6 to my desktop. :( -- Matt Brown matt(a)mattb.net.nz Mob +64 21 611 544 www.mattb.net.nz
On 11/30/06, Richard Nelson
So, engaging in some very wild speculation, lets assume that:
Microsoft Vista ships with Teredo tunnelling support for IPv6 and is mildly successful,
Microsoft just before Vista went to RC2 (or was it RC1??) turned Teredo support OFF by default (it was previously on). For a couple of interesting articles about Vista and IP see: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/columns/cableguy/cg1005.mspx http://www.microsoft.com/technet/network/ipv6/vista_dns.mspx Ian -- Web: http://wand.net.nz/~iam4 Blog: http://imcdnzl.blogspot.com WAND Network Research Group
Andy Linton wrote:
Personally, I think the two main benefits touted for IPv6:
1) Talking to the US military
But they don't talk to anyone, anyway. Certainly not us filthy, filthy, asia pacific based people.
2) Getting more traffic from people in China and Korea - I think I get quite enough already
seem pretty uncompelling.
Spam over v6! It might conceivably be useful (stand on one leg, squint real hard) if you had a large content site that was hit regularly by China and Korea. This seems unlikely though, especially as any v6-only site in those locales will have some form of v4 gating. I'm more interested to see when "a large corporate" with many dollars to spend might be able to convince telcos to do something like 6PE for their IPVPN services. Is anyone doing this today? Does anyone want it? Is it a "MANDATORY" requirement, or is it a "Nice to have"? Are there alternatives? Does anyone care? I'm actually genuinely curious. aj. -- "ipv4" and "atm" for the quote and protocol goodness.
I can tell you that Vista Server ships with IPv6 enabled by default - and as the preferred protocol. It will make an IPv6 AAAA query first, and an A query. More over, if one Vista Server talks to another Vista Server and there is only IPv4 between them then it actually builds an IPv6 tunnel between the box's (rather than using IPv4), and uses that instead. Also, IPv4 can be uninstalled from Vista Server. -----Original Message----- ... That kind of implies that if all those Windows users were to turn on the relevant hooks in XP then it would all burst into life. Perhaps Vista will have it on by default and everything will just start working. (:-)
On Thu, November 30, 2006 18:42, Dean Pemberton wrote:
Also, IPv4 can be uninstalled from Vista Server.
Interesting - Internet Explorer is a Core system component and can't be uninstalled.... But IPv4... oh THATS optional =)
Incidentally, IPv6 isn't optional. http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/columns/cableguy/cg1005.mspx --quote-- Disabling IPv6 Unlike Windows XP, IPv6 in Windows Vista and Windows Server Longhorn cannot be uninstalled. --quote-- It then goes on to mention that it can be disabled per interface.
Some years ago there was a great phot of the sky tower being whacked by lightning. I'd like a copy in exchange for two beer credits. andy
beer please... http://images.google.co.nz/images?gbv=2&hl=en&q=sky+tower+lightning&btnG=Search+Images Cheers Dan Andy Linton wrote:
Some years ago there was a great phot of the sky tower being whacked by lightning.
I'd like a copy in exchange for two beer credits.
andy
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
Brilliantly done (pun intended). Definitely a beer-holding record. Paul Brislen External Communications Manager Vodafone New Zealand 021 721 337 -----Original Message----- From: Dan Clark [mailto:danclarknz(a)gmail.com] Sent: Monday, 25 August 2008 4:51 p.m. To: Andy Linton Cc: NZNOG List Subject: Re: [nznog] lightning photo of sky tower beer please... http://images.google.co.nz/images?gbv=2&hl=en&q=sky+tower+lightning&btnG =Search+Images Cheers Dan Andy Linton wrote:
Some years ago there was a great phot of the sky tower being whacked by lightning.
I'd like a copy in exchange for two beer credits.
andy
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unless otherwise stated, any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not represent those of Vodafone New Zealand Limited.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 None of which is the photo that Andy was seeking. I got at it once via the APE website, but it was many years ago and the route I took is lost in the fog of my memory. Dan Clark wrote: | beer please... | http://images.google.co.nz/images?gbv=2&hl=en&q=sky+tower+lightning&btnG=Search+Images | | Cheers | Dan | | Andy Linton wrote: |> Some years ago there was a great phot of the sky tower being whacked |> by lightning. |> |> I'd like a copy in exchange for two beer credits. |> |> andy |> |> _______________________________________________ |> NZNOG mailing list |> NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz |> http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog |> | _______________________________________________ | NZNOG mailing list | NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz | http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog - -- Matthew Poole "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer." -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkiyPIUACgkQTdEtTmUCdpxZwACdFIGmygHyzdVqS8B6oo2zowKP uSwAniLd9IFlaeYx8yUVoaAvw0wlvPMH =md3v -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On the other hand he asked for a specific photo not just a random photo. This on is from the APE website archive. On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Dan Clark wrote:
beer please... http://images.google.co.nz/images?gbv=2&hl=en&q=sky+tower+lightning&btnG=Search+Images
Cheers Dan
Andy Linton wrote:
Some years ago there was a great phot of the sky tower being whacked by lightning.
I'd like a copy in exchange for two beer credits.
andy
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
-- Simon Lyall | Very Busy | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz/ "To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT.
See also http://www.enertecservices.co.nz/skytower.html - looks suspiciously like the same image. On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Dan Clark wrote:
yeh thats the one, knew it was in there somewhere ;)
Dan
Simon Lyall wrote:
On the other hand he asked for a specific photo not just a random photo.
This on is from the APE website archive.
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Dan Clark wrote: beer please... http://images.google.co.nz/images?gbv=2&hl=en&q=sky+tower+lightning&btnG=Search+Images
Cheers Dan
Andy Linton wrote: Some years ago there was a great phot of the sky tower being whacked by lightning.
I'd like a copy in exchange for two beer credits.
andy
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
Hah - I remember that very well - the target of that strike was ihug's starnet antenna !! Bart Kindt was a trifle miffed !! On 25/08/2008, at 5:01 PM, Simon Lyall wrote:
On the other hand he asked for a specific photo not just a random photo.
This on is from the APE website archive.
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Dan Clark wrote:
beer please... http://images.google.co.nz/images?gbv=2&hl=en&q=sky+tower+lightning&btnG=Search+Images
Cheers Dan
Andy Linton wrote:
Some years ago there was a great phot of the sky tower being whacked by lightning.
I'd like a copy in exchange for two beer credits.
andy
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
-- Simon Lyall | Very Busy | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz/ "To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT.
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
-- Bryan Christianson bryan(a)whatroute.net
Was that the strike that was related to the melted transmitter that I had as a doorstop in my office in the NOC for some months? JSR On 25/08/2008, at 5:38 PM, Bryan Christianson wrote:
Hah - I remember that very well - the target of that strike was ihug's starnet antenna !! Bart Kindt was a trifle miffed !!
On 25/08/2008, at 5:01 PM, Simon Lyall wrote:
On the other hand he asked for a specific photo not just a random photo.
This on is from the APE website archive.
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Dan Clark wrote:
beer please... http://images.google.co.nz/images?gbv=2&hl=en&q=sky+tower+lightning&btnG=Search+Images
Cheers Dan
Andy Linton wrote:
Some years ago there was a great phot of the sky tower being whacked by lightning.
I'd like a copy in exchange for two beer credits.
andy
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
-- Simon Lyall | Very Busy | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz/ "To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT.
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog -- Bryan Christianson bryan(a)whatroute.net
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
-- John S Russell Big Geek. Doing Geek Stuff.
They won't be able to sell IPv4 because they won't be able to get it. There won't be any left to buy, or it will be so expensive it won't be economic for an ISP to obtain it. -----Original Message----- From: Jonny Martin [mailto:jonny(a)jonnynet.net] Sent: Thursday, 30 November 2006 12:44 a.m. To: Philip D'Ath Cc: dean(a)deanpemberton.com; nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: [nznog] Charging for IPv6 On 30/11/2006, at 12:04 AM, Philip D'Ath wrote:
Agreed. The difference being a provider will always be able to sell QoS. A provider will not always be able to sell IPv4.
Why not? The bane of most Telco's is how to _stop_ selling legacy products. It's hard for them because they sell so much of them. I don't see it being any different for IPv4.
On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 08:50 +1300, Philip D'Ath wrote:
They won't be able to sell IPv4 because they won't be able to get it. There won't be any left to buy, or it will be so expensive it won't be economic for an ISP to obtain it.
So market forces will take care of it. So long as IPv4 is cheaper to
deploy and maintain than transition costs to IPv6, there is no way any
sensible business is going to shift to it.
This seems to be a bit of a storm in a teacup. By all means, people
should play with it. But demanding a transition when it makes no
economic sense to do so right now is just bad business.
--
David Zanetti
On 30/11/2006, at 9:49 AM, David Zanetti wrote:
This seems to be a bit of a storm in a teacup. By all means, people should play with it. But demanding a transition when it makes no economic sense to do so right now is just bad business.
Acting early when you have the benefit of time is often less costly than acting when you are forced to do so with limited time. Makes economic sense to me. regards Peter Mott -/-
There's been some discussion here about multihoming and IPv6. We decided that we need to be able to multihome and went to APNIC for address space. We filled in the forms in good faith indicating that we intended to have 200 customers within the two year time scale etc. That was in June 2005. Since then we've never had a single customer ask for an allocation. It's fair to say we haven't really been pushing that hard either. For us having this address space from APNIC pushes us into the next tier of membership and costs us an additional US$2500 a year. We have had a very serious discussion here about returning this to APNIC and getting a reduction in our charges. So my question is in part to APNIC and also to members of this group, "If IPv6 is such good thing that we all should be encouraged to use it why does the APNIC pricing model mitigate against it?"
On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 10:07 +1300, Peter Mott wrote:
On 30/11/2006, at 9:49 AM, David Zanetti wrote:
This seems to be a bit of a storm in a teacup. By all means, people should play with it. But demanding a transition when it makes no economic sense to do so right now is just bad business.
Acting early when you have the benefit of time is often less costly than acting when you are forced to do so with limited time. Makes economic sense to me.
Of course, I didn't say "no no, IPv6 mustn't be touched at all", by all
means play with it, run tunnels, labs, etc.
I just don't see anything today I would bother demanding native v6
transit for. So long as that't the case, I can live with tunnels for the
lab/play phase of things.
--
David Zanetti
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 at 09:49:01 +1300, David Zanetti wrote:
So market forces will take care of it. So long as IPv4 is cheaper to deploy and maintain than transition costs to IPv6, there is no way any sensible business is going to shift to it.
Are all registries going to slowly and artifially jack up the price as we approach depletion of IPv4 addresses? If it's going to be business as usual right up until they run out, then market forces won't handle it. Markets generally cope very badly with sudden elimination of supply. Even if address space does start to rise in price, a certain amount of altruism will be required of the haves to implement some form of IPv6 so that the have-nots can continue to grow with out becoming second class internet citizens.
This seems to be a bit of a storm in a teacup. By all means, people should play with it. But demanding a transition when it makes no economic sense to do so right now is just bad business.
The concern is it won't make any economic sense until it's possibly too late for a smooth transition. Nigel
Jonny Martin wrote:
It's been an interesting few threads on IPv6 the past few days and given all the excitement I find it odd that nobody has mentioned that http://v6ix.nzix.net/peers.html returns a 404.
That's really got nothing to do with who peers - it's indicative of the fact that there's so little interest that we haven't needed to complete the automation work of the making this page work. More relevant is a list of the actual IPv6 peering table: *> 2001:500::/48 2001:7fa:3:ca07::9 0 23755 9560 23710 3557 i *> 2001:7fa:3:1::/64 2001:7fa:3:ca07::9 0 0 23755 ? *> 2001:7fa:3:2::/64 2001:7fa:3:ca07::9 0 0 23755 ? *> 2001:7fa:3:3::/64 2001:7fa:3:ca07::9 0 0 23755 ? *> 2001:7fa:3:4::/64 2001:7fa:3:ca07::9 0 0 23755 ? *> 2001:7fa:3:5::/64 2001:7fa:3:ca07::9 0 0 23755 ? *> 2001:7fa:3:a626::/64 2001:7fa:3:ca07::9 0 0 23755 ? *> 2001:7fa:3:ca07::/64 2001:7fa:3:ca07::9 0 0 23755 ? *> 2001:7fa:4:1::/64 2001:7fa:3:ca07::9 0 23755 ? *> 2001:7fa:4:c0cb::/64 2001:7fa:3:ca07::9 0 23755 ? *> 2001:e20::/32 2001:7fa:3:ca07::116 0 0 17435 i *> 2001:4401:2::/48 2001:7fa:3:ca07::6e 0 0 23905 i *> 2001:4410::/32 2001:7fa:3:ca07::6 0 0 23754 i *> 2001:4428::/32 2001:7fa:3:ca07::f5 0 18119 i Total number of prefixes 14
Seems to me that's there many complaining about the lack of interest in IPv6 and even more pontificating about what needs to happen to ensure IPv6 takes off, but a distinct lack of people actually trying to do something about it.
We've had the internal discussion at CityLink about turning the V6IX off due to lack of interest. I suspect that no one would really give a toss! The transit link we provide between to link the V6 exchange together runs at a steady 225 bps - yes bits per second!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andy Linton"
Firstly, thanks for setting this up. Is this anycast address advertised
outside of APE and WIX, so that domestic peering ISPs can see it?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andy Linton"
participants (23)
-
Alastair Johnson -
Andy Linton -
Andy Linton -
Brislen, Paul, VF-NZ -
Bryan Christianson -
Craig Whitmore -
Dan Clark -
Dave - Dave.net.nz -
David Zanetti -
Dean Pemberton -
Ian McDonald -
Joe Abley -
John Russell -
Jonny Martin -
Mark Foster -
Matt Brown -
Matthew Poole -
Nigel Roberts -
Perry Lorier -
Peter Mott -
Philip D'Ath -
Richard Nelson -
Simon Lyall