IPv6 Thought Experiment

Wed Oct 2 16:40:33 UTC 2019

Antonios,

It's certainly financial but it's not just companies being cheap. For
example for smaller companies with a limited staff and small margins. They
may want to have v6 everywhere but lack the resources to do it. It would
for certain speed up the process but there would be collateral damage in
the process.

On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 12:34 PM Antonios Chariton <daknob.mac at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear list,
> First of all, let me apologize if this post is not allowed by the list. To
> my best interpretation of the guidelines [1] it is allowed, but may be in a
> gray area due to rule #7.
>
> I would like to propose the following thought experiment about IPv6, and I
> would like your opinion on what you believe would happen in such a case.
> Feel free to reply on or off list.
>
> What if, globally, and starting at January 1st, 2020, someone (imagine a
> government or similar, but with global reach) imposed an IPv4 tax. For
> every IPv4 address on the Global Internet Routing Table, you had to pay a
> tax. Let’s assume that this can be imposed, must be paid, and cannot be
> avoided using some loophole. Let’s say that this tax would be $2, and it
> would double, every 3 or 6 months.
>
> What do you think would happen? Would it be the only way to reach 100%
> IPv6 deployment, or even that wouldn’t be sufficient?
>
> And for bonus points, consider the following: what if all certification
> bodies of equipment, for certifications like FCC’s or CE in Europe, for
> applications after Jan 1st 2023 would include a “MUST NOT support IPv4”..
>
> What I am trying to understand is whether deploying IPv6 is a pure
> financial problem. If it is, in this scenario, it would very very soon
> become much more pricey to not deploy it.
>
> I know there are a lot of gaps in this, for example who imposes this, what
> is the "Global Internet Routing Table", etc. but let’s try to see around
> them, to the core idea behind them.
>
> Thanks,
> Antonis
>
> -------
> Links
> -------
> 1: https://nanog.org/resources/usage-guidelines/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20191002/509ff0e3/attachment.html>