Subject: Re: A use for site local addresses?

From: Tim Hartrick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:07:40 -0800 (PST)

All,

> 
> You pay your provider per traffic volume or bandwidth. Not per IP 
> address. At least non I know of. They will give you as much addresses 
> you need. Now if you still want to put the globally unique addresses 
> behind a NAT, you are free to. But it's a bad idea. The addresses given 
> to you from your provider are not private.
> 

I know of almost no US providers that don't currently charge for IPv4 address
space.  Absent some regulation, there is no reason to believe that they will
stop charging for IPv6 address space no matter how freely the bits are made
available to them.  It would be great if ISPs would charge for bandwidth
only but that simply isn't the way the world currently works and there is
absolutely nothing about IPv6 that will change that.  More bits in the address
don't mean diddly if the only way to get the bits is through an oligarchy
of ISPs.

Tim Hartrick
Mentat Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Jeroen Massar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:33:13 +0100

> I know of almost no US providers that don't currently charge 
> for IPv4 address space.

Enduser ISP's will always charge for extra IP space as it's
currently not customary to give an enduser more than 1 IP.
Also IPv4 is a becoming a 'scarce' resource.

> Absent some regulation, there is no reason to believe that
> they will stop charging for IPv6 address space no matter
> how freely the bits are made available to them. 
> It would be great if ISPs would charge for bandwidth
> only but that simply isn't the way the world currently works 
> and there is absolutely nothing about IPv6 that will change that.
> More bits in the address don't mean diddly if the only way to
> get the bits is through an oligarchy of ISPs.

If the ISP doesn't provide /48's to an endsite, other ISP's
will have the advantage that they do. Also if the ISP doesn't
they are going against RFC's.

You might also realize that the current TLA policy for RIR's
demands that you have 200 prospect clients. That is 200x /48.
Aka 200 endusers on DSL will suffice for them.

Currently even most tunnelbroker system endusers get
a /48 and in some cases even more. And they are not even
paying for bandwidth nor for ipspace. Go figure ;)

Greets,
 Jeroen

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:37:38 +0100

> don't mean diddly if the only way to get the bits is through an 

This probably comes down to the ARIN membership. Not all the world get 
their IP addresses from ARIN though...and for IPv6 most people don't.

- kurtis -

---

From: David Conrad <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:12:22 -0800

Jeroen,

> currently not customary to give an enduser more than 1 IP.

Varies per service provider.  My home ISP, for example, provides 2 
static addresses for the package I purchased.  I frequently heard of 
ISPs allocating /24s to customers, although that was a while back.

> Also IPv4 is a becoming a 'scarce' resource.

Of course, IANA just 'found' another 350 million unused addresses...

> Aka 200 endusers on DSL will suffice for them.

For those interested in address allocation policy, I might suggest 
participating in the RIR public policy mailing lists and meetings 
([email-masked] and the upcoming Memphis meeting for those in the ARIN 
region).

Rgds,
-drc

---

From: "Jeroen Massar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:50:50 +0100

> ISPs allocating /24s to customers, although that was a while back.

Depends on a lot of things indeed. I could probably get more than one
IP if I wanted to and paid for it.

> Of course, IANA just 'found' another 350 million unused addresses...

Note that I quoted 'scarce', which is not for nothing, because indeed:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space

Quick grab, skipping the smaller leftovers:
 58 -  60    reserved 
 70 -  79    reserved
 83 - 126    reserved
197          reserved
224 - 239    multicast
240 - 255    reserved

But the fact is that a country like China could use that space up
with ease when they are going for mass GPRS mobile phones and other
new toys that are under development. Also see HD ratio's.

> ([email-masked] and the upcoming Memphis meeting for those in the ARIN 

Will do, thanks.

Greets,
 Jeroen

---

From: "EricLKlein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:55:28 +0200

> Aka 200 endusers on DSL will suffice for them.

Yes, but what we are saying is 200 clients per DSL user, not per DSLAM. Each
and every person with DSL access would be geting those 200 evenif it is for
1 PC.

Some how I don't see it happening this way in the real world. RFC or
otherwise.