Re: [RRG] IPv4/6/ngng or IPv4-map-encap then IPngng

[Per Heldal <heldal@eml.cc>]

On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 20:58 +1000, Robin Whittle wrote:
> Hi again Per,
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> > Any company and/or organisation today is expected to analyse the 
> > behaviour of their market and client-base. How hard is it for the
> > internet registries to ask a statistically significant selection
> > of their clients (LIRs) and known legacy-allocation holders if
> > they're willing to give up some of their allocated blocks, how
> > much of it, and on which conditions?
> 
> The scenario I am proposing depends to a large extent on map-encap.
>  It could still happen to a limited extent by creating more and more
> BGP advertised prefixes, but that will be resisted because it would
> unfairly burden all DFZ router operators.
> 
> For the RIRs to seriously consider the possibility I am suggesting,
> they would need to have a good understanding of the possibilities of
> map-encap schemes. 

>From where do you get the idea that these groups are so completely
disconnected? There's always been disputes between ISP-engineers with a
preference for practical working solutions and idealist scientists.
Still, leading engineers in the provider industry who are active
participants in governance-communities are closely following these
developments as subscribers on these lists. Your assumptions of
ignorance is offending a lot of people.


>  Yet these schemes - with the exception of the
> LISP prototype code - are vapourware and hardly known outside the
> RRG.  Even within the RRG not many people have much faith in them,
> and each of us map-encap developers has less faith in the other
> systems than in our own!

If the RIR communities are so ignorant then why have such solutions been
discussed both on and off-stage at community conferences for years?


[snip]

> I imagine there would be a curved relationship between the price per
> IP address and the number of IP addresses in the prefix which
> end-users want.
> 
> I think you could find hundreds of thousands of end-users who would
> pay, say $20 a year per portable, multihomable IP address, for small
> amounts such as 1, 2, 8, 32 or so.

A problem with this is that micro-allocations only make up a small
portion of the annual global consumption. If the big consumers are
pushed into such prices/address you'll very soon see considerable
investments going towards alternative solutions.


//per




--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg