Subject: Re: [dhcwg] We can change the world in a 1000 ways (IPv4 over IPv6)

From: "Simon Hobson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 13:56:57 +0000

Lee Howard wrote:
>>Its worse than that.  Given that v4 has been monetized by big ISPs, it is
>>actaully a revenue loss for them to transition to v6 on a large scale.
>
>Do you mean IPv6-only is a revenue loss, or dual-stack or some kind of
>transition mechanism?
>I'm pretty sure I don't understand your point.

I suspect he may be referring to the way many ISPs treat IPv4 addresses as something they can charge for. For example, one of the big ISPs over here (BT Internet) charge (IIRC) £5 (so around $7 to $8)/month if you want a fixed address - which can be 25% or more extra on the monthly cost (depending on the package you buy). They aren't alone.
But people pay it because they believe the ISP tale of how the adresses are in short supply blah, blah.

It's hard to sell the scarcity value of IPv6 addresses !

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 19:12:12 +0000

> It's hard to sell the scarcity value of IPv6 addresses !

ISPs could do the same thing with IPv6 prefixes, and actually IPv6 renumbering means it would have a less painful impact on the customer (if done right, of course!).   I've never had anybody sell it on the basis of scarcity—it's always just been straight extortion: pay us for a stable address, or we may at any time renumber you.

---

From: Lee Howard <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 14:18:54 -0800

On 11/15/13 5:56 AM, "Simon Hobson" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>I suspect he may be referring to the way many ISPs treat IPv4 addresses
>as something they can charge for. For example, one of the big ISPs over
>here (BT Internet) charge (IIRC) £5 (so around $7 to $8)/month if you
>want a fixed address - which can be 25% or more extra on the monthly cost
>(depending on the package you buy).

Charging for a stable, unchanging address works as well/poorly in IPv4 and
IPv6 (except s/address/prefix).

Is this an actual consideration from an operator who has this use case, or
is this somebody alleging problems based on the assumption that ISPs are
evil?  Given that many big ISPs are deploying IPv6, is this a real concern?

Lee

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 16:17:02 -0500

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Simon Hobson <[email-masked]>wrote:

> I suspect he may be referring to the way many ISPs treat IPv4 addresses as
> something they can charge for. For example, one of the big ISPs over here
> (BT Internet) charge (IIRC) £5 (so around $7 to $8)/month if you want a
> fixed address - which can be 25% or more extra on the monthly cost
> (depending on the package you buy). They aren't alone.

I think that what they are actually doing there is distinguishing customers
who need a fixed address because they want to run a server and those who
have simpler needs.

While the amount charged is likely much more than the cost of providing the
address it is very likely to represent the additional cost of supporting
such users, especially the higher bandwidth they are likely to consume.

And there is going to be a cost associated with allowing consumers to keep
a static IP address. It is going to constrain their operations quite
significantly and prevent optimizations of the routing space they might
otherwise deploy.

At those levels the cost of customer support is most of the cost of
providing service. Having to tell a customer that their address needs to
change is expensive.

Neither of the two monopoly providers in my neighborhood supports that
service at all except as a 'business' package costing several hundred
dollars a month extra.

-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/

---

From: Sten Carlsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 16:33:30 +0100

On 15/11/13 22.17, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Simon Hobson <[email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     Lee Howard wrote:
>     I suspect he may be referring to the way many ISPs treat IPv4
>     addresses as something they can charge for. For example, one of
>     the big ISPs over here (BT Internet) charge (IIRC) £5 (so around
>     $7 to $8)/month if you want a fixed address - which can be 25% or
>     more extra on the monthly cost (depending on the package you buy).
>     They aren't alone.
> I think that what they are actually doing there is distinguishing
> customers who need a fixed address because they want to run a server
> and those who have simpler needs.
>
> While the amount charged is likely much more than the cost of
> providing the address it is very likely to represent the additional
> cost of supporting such users, especially the higher bandwidth they
> are likely to consume.
>
> And there is going to be a cost associated with allowing consumers to
> keep a static IP address. It is going to constrain their operations
> quite significantly and prevent optimizations of the routing space
> they might otherwise deploy.
>
> providing service. Having to tell a customer that their address needs
> to change is expensive.
>
Pricing can be very different, I get up to 5 fixed IPv4 addresses at
about 3$/month extra. This means it is only a money machine, actual cost
is less than the 3$. This makes me wonder if it is a task of the IETF to
provide a money machine to ISPs?
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

-- 
Best regards

Sten Carlsen

No improvements come from shouting:

       "MALE BOVINE MANURE!!!"

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 17:13:32 +0100 (CET)

> provide a money machine to ISPs?

- It is the RIRs, not IETF, that determine how much ISPs can charge
for IP addresses.

- It sounds like you're saying that those 5 fixed addresses are *not*
worth $36 per year. In that case - have you considered how much you
think they *are* worth, and whether you can vote with your wallet and
switch to a different ISP?

- I have no idea what is the real cost to the ISP of those 5 addresses,
but pretty obviously it's not 0. Presumably the ISP is in the business
to make money. Are you saying that the ISP is making an *unreasonable*
profit charging for fixed IP addresses?

Disclaimer: Working for a service provider that only offers dynamic
addresses to residential customers.

Steinar Haug, AS 2116

---

From: Sten Carlsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 18:58:18 +0100

> switch to a different ISP?
My point was that I use a cheap ISP, I also get the 5 IPs for a very
modest sum compared to the above "costing several hundred dollars a
month extra".

My second point was that if they make money on giving me the 5 IPs at
3$/month, the cost has to be lower. I do run all sorts of servers here,
no issues.

-- 
Best regards

Sten Carlsen

       "MALE BOVINE MANURE!!!"