misunderstanding scale (was: Ipv4 end, its fake.)

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Tue Mar 25 00:42:23 UTC 2014


IPv4 has already been trading around $10/address.

So the prices quoted a while back don’t make much sense to me.

Further, could you please quantify “vast”? How many /8 equivalents in
a “vast number”?

Until they ran out, APNIC was issuing approximately 1.5 /8s per month.

How long, exactly, do you expect 3.2 billion unicast addresses to provide
enough addressing for 6.8+ billion people?

Owen
On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:57 PM, John Levine <johnl at iecc.com> wrote:

>> In such a case, where you are still pushing the case for 
>> IPv4, how do you envisage things will look on your side when 
>> everybody else you want to talk to is either on IPv6, or 
>> frantically getting it turned up? Do you reckon anyone will 
>> have time to help you troubleshoot patchy (for example) IPv4 
>> connectivity when all the focus is on IPv6?
> 
> I've put that concern on my calendar for sometime around 2025.
> 
> People have been saying switch to IPv6 now Now NOW for about a decade,
> and you can only cry wolf so many times.  My servers do IPv6 through a
> tunnel from HE (thanks!) where the performance is only somewhat worse
> than the native v4, and my home cable has v6 that mostly works, but
> the key term there is mostly.  (The ISP had a fairly bad internal
> routing bug which apparently nobody noticed until I tracked down why
> my v6 connectivity was flaky, and I happened to know some senior
> people at the ISP who could understand what I was telling them about
> their internal routers.)
> 
> We've just barely started to move from the era of free IPv4 to the one
> where you have to buy it, and from everyhing I see, there is vast
> amounts of space that will be available once people realize they can
> get real money for it.  The prices cited a couple of messages back
> seem to be in the ballpark.  It will be a long time before the price
> of v4 rises high enough to make it worth the risk of going v6 only.
> 
> R's,
> John
> 
> 




More information about the NANOG mailing list