John - > John Curran wrote : > Michel - Organizations with a registration services plan don’t pay any > separate ASN maintenance fees so your > previous total of $300 annually ($150 for the /24 + $150 for ASN maintenance) > will now be $250 annually in total.
It makes sense now. I must have looked at some obsolete info last time I checked. Thanks for the clarification. I swear I looked at the fee estimator thing. So, I stand corrected, the ARIN fees for next year will be $50 less than they were this year ! Yeah ! > but again, no overall requirement to deploy IPv6 exists at the present time. "at the present time" is not good enough. $50 million instead of $50 may work. > Albert Erdmann wrote : > I would love to hear the exact reasons why IPv6 is felt to be a failure. Because it promised things that have never been delivered, such as multihoming without a big routing table. Because it promised to end NAT, while today the IPv6 NAT mess is a lot worse than the IPv4. I need an accountant just to inventory how many forms of IPv6 NAT there are out there. Because it was supposed to be autoconfig, while lots of people are using DHCPv6 which is no progress. Because it was supposed to replace IPv4, and that is the part that has failed for 20 years and will continue to fail for the foreseeable future. > However, since IPv6 is the protocol that carries over 1/2 of my internet > traffic Your Internet traffic is not relevant. Neither is Google, because it does not show how many people use Google over IPv6 just to click an IPv4-only link. Google shows somehow how many users are IPv6 enabled, nothing about real traffic. I am looking at real stats, such as these : https://stats.ams-ix.net/sflow/ether_type.html IPv6 traffic over an entire IX, including private interconnects. What is it ? 4% ? How many terabits of data do you push at peak ? I have zero customers who do not have IPv4. I have zero business partners who do not have IPv4. I have hundreds of firewalls in 46 US states. Explain me how to sell dual-stacking to my c-level. It would cost millions to implement. And it would gain absolutely nothing. No new revenue. Just cost, no new revenue. And we are not in a rush; the FUD does not work anymore. The Internet is not going to stop because we have run out of addresses. Year after year, I have saved money by not implementing IPv6. IPv6 is a failure. The protocol itself is not, but there is no realistic plan to remove IPv4 for the foreseeable future. As I said about ISDN : it was supposed to replace POTS. It did not. Operators collectively lost billions in that pipe dream. Not going to happen again. IPv6 has failed to replace IPv4. I have heard it too many time for the last 20 years : "Oh, in 3 years, everyone will use IPv6 and IPv4 will disappear". For the last 20 years. I Still Don't Need. Michel. _______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
