IPv6 news

Sun Oct 16 05:02:40 UTC 2005

Jordi,

On Oct 15, 2005, at 2:09 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> I don't think users need to be charged any extra for IPv6 if it  
> runs in the
> same pipe as their actual IPv4 one.

If IPv6 is tunneled through IPv4 in such a way that the ISP doesn't  
have to do anything special, then I suspect you wouldn't get charged  
extra.  However, if an ISP has to run two logical networks as you do  
with the dual stack strategy, there will be additional costs in terms  
of hardware/software upgrades, technical support, troubleshooting,  
etc.  I would think it fair that those expenses would be reimbursed  
somehow, perhaps with a bit extra to cover the cost of further  
upgrades.  But then again, I don't run an ISP.

> Do we charge to our customers when we solve a bug or problem in our  
> network?

I suppose it depends on whether or not everyone agrees that the bug  
or problem exists and the solution proposed addresses that bug or  
problem.

> IPv6 was invented to solve a "bug" in IPv4: The lack of enough  
> addresses.

Actually, according to section 5.1 of RFC 1726:

       The initial, motivating, purpose of the IPng effort is to allow
       the Internet to grow beyond the size constraints imposed by the
       current IPv4 addressing and routing technologies.

       Both aspects of scaling are important.  If we can't route then
       connecting all these hosts is worthless, but without connected
       hosts, there's no point in routing, so we must scale in both
       directions.

Unfortunately, it would seem the "and routing" part was forgotten.

In my opinion, the real "bug" of IPv4 was the overloading of the  
routing locator and the end point identifier into the same protocol  
field.  IPv6, of course, drove into the same swamp (yelling "me too,  
me too", with apologies to Dave Clark) and efforts like shim6 are  
hacks to get around this (now obvious) problem.

> Of course, now IPv6 could bring extra features, and we should take the
> opportunity to make new business based on that. The existence of an
> "unlimited" addressing space for every customer

I _really_ wish people would stop saying '"unlimited"' or 'almost  
infinite' when talking about IPv6 address space.  It simply isn't  
true, even in the theoretical sense, and particularly given how  
address space is being allocated now.  It also gives many people the  
wrong impression: that IPv6 addresses will mean every grain of sand  
in the Universe (or whatever) can have portable address space.

> itself will allow to create
> new services and apps (unfortunately still to come, and that's the  
> main
> issue), which we will be able to charge for.

Maybe it's just me, but I suspect any service that would be  
compelling enough, in a business sense, to drive significant IPv6  
deployment would also be implementable in some way in IPv4.

> Also that will generate extra bandwidth demand, which we will also  
> charge
> for.

My impression is that most of the folks who provide bit pipes really  
want to provide enhanced services, not driving to the bottom of  
commodity pricing.

> Of course, at the end is a competition problem. If some carriers/ 
> ISPs don't
> charge for IPv6 service, may be others will need to same if they  
> want to
> stay in the market.

Very true.  However, if carriers/ISPs don't recover their costs,  
they'll probably not be around very long to compete.

Rgds,
-drc
(speaking for myself only, of course)