At 01:44 PM 11/22/2004, Fred Baker wrote:
At 01:05 PM 11/22/04 -0500, Richard Shockey wrote:Yes Fred I would _expect_ my ISP to sell me a /64 but at what price? It continues to amaze me that no one discussing the IP V6 adoption issues will focus attention on the obvious question ..what is it going to cost me?
Is there any way the engineer can predict that or control it?
Of course ..this is Economics 101 .. if you have a product you want to sell you look for its optimal price point based on a cost benefit analysis of the alternatives.
http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/samuelson.htm
Why are packet networks more efficient than circuit switched ones ? :-)
I think the problem the Internet Engineering community has had is that we have not taken out to lunch some of our friends in Economic Theory who would help us understand the IPV6 adoption problem for what it is an economic not a technical issue.
I've personally believed for some time the solution to V4 to V6 migration is economic. Maybe Charge more for V4 resources and less for V6 and the market may then decide .. hummm gee maybe I should switch. I dont know.
However that requires that wholesale pricing policy by the RIR's be enforceable to downstream retailers ( ISP's) which it tricky to do ( but possible ) and a realization by retailers that they have an incentive to push the product (V6). The question then to retailers ( ISP's ) are why aren't you trying to sell V6? That begs the question What are the ISP's economic incentive to push V6 downstream? That is the question I've been trying to have answered for years.
What the architecture has made exceedingly clear is that the ISP can't expect to dole out /128 prefixes, and has no incentive to.
my point exactly
Shockey's Law : Money is the answer, what is the question?
It could state that it wants to only do address autoconfiguration on its interfaces, and it could watch its customers vote with their feet. ISPs aren't that stupid, I don't think. They understand what Linksys has done with their market.
Linksys is the perfect example here ..produce a product at a optimal price point with fantastic distribution and is easy to use ( like duh Ipod ?? ) and the world will beat a path to your door.
NAT's have been the inevitable answer to the poor pricing policy of IP numbering.
Which comes down to a comment on the policy in use in handing out IPv4 addresses. We (collectively) exert very heavy backpressure on ISPs getting new address allocations, which they pass along to their customers in this form. Change that policy - and we are - for IPv6 prefixes, and you can plan on the ISPs following suit.
But a change in policy without built in economic incentives will not work.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org sip:57141@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ENUM +87810-13313-31331 PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 <mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> or <mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz> ; <http://www.enum.org> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf