North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: IPV4 as a Commodity for Profit

  • From: Tom Vest
  • Date: Thu Feb 21 18:58:18 2008


(apologies in advance for extending this thread here rather than on ppml -- will gladly take responses off-list, or move it over if responders would prefer to continue the discussion there)


On Feb 22, 2008, at 6:22 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

Thus spake "Adrian Chadd" <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
As I ranted on #nanog last night; the v6 transition will happen when it
costs more to buy / maintain a v4 infrastructure (IP trading, quadruple
NAT, support overheads, v6 tunnel brokers, etc) then it is to migrate
infrastructure to v6.


If people were sane (!), they'd have a method right now for an
enterprise to migrate 100% native IPv6 and interconnect to the v4
network via translation devices. None of this dual stack crap. It makes
the heads of IT security and technical managers spin.

I agree, to a point. My prediction is that when the handful of mega-ISPs are unable to get the massive quantities of IPv4 addresses they need (a few dozen account for 90% of all consumption in the ARIN region)...

I keep reading assertions like this. Is there any public, authoritative evidence to support this claim?
If there is, is this 90% figure a new development, or rather the product of changes in ownership (e.g., MCI-VZ-UU, SBC-ATT, etc.), changes in behavior (a run on the bank), some combination of the two, or something else altogether?


Thanks,

TV