IPv4 address exchange

Rubens Kuhl rubensk at gmail.com
Tue Apr 19 03:06:10 UTC 2011

>> perhaps, if you are seeking support for commercial activity, you should
>> make your employment more clear and declare any conflicts of interest.
> Fair enough.
> I am employed by Cisco Systems, but all of my statements are my own and I do not represent my employer.  I believe that my employer may benefit from any policy that makes IP addresses more available to more of our customers - we can perhaps sell more routers if more people have addresses - but nobody from Cisco has encouraged me to work in this topic.  Otherwise, I have no commercial interest in the outcome of the policy proposals that I've made.  The proposals that I've put forward are an honest attempt to motivate conversation.

On the contrary, I believe router vendors including but not limited to
Cisco benefits more from IPv4 address exhaustion, as it's an
opportunity to sell new gear that can do hardware forwarding of IPv6
packets, or sell software upgrades to CPU-based platforms (either due
to lack of IPv6 altogether or lack of support of newer IPv6 features).

That doesn't mean that router vendors are promoting address exhaustion
chaos to get new business. That would be a nice conspiracy theory,


More information about the NANOG mailing list