IPv6 Thought Experiment

Wed Oct 2 21:27:27 UTC 2019

I suspect that even if there was an entity with the reach to impose such a
tax, people will resort to deploying CGN more, to hide their IPv4 usage to
the extent possible.  That's time, money, and effort taken away from moving
to IPv6.

You might also find that many taxed organizations will simply ignore the
tax or refuse to pay it, under the assumption that the taxing entity
doesn't have standing to impose such taxes.  Someone from Russia is likely
to take a tax notice from, say, some agency in the USA and toss it in the
circular file :)

As others have said, threatening the Internet community with punitive
action is a sure way to discourage people from adopting IPv6.  While the
pace of adoption might not be acceptable to some, everyone has to move at
their own pace, or vote with their wallets where possible.

Thank you
jms

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/20191002/224f4610/attachment.html>