Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|Dan Lanciani wrote:
|...
|> Please explain *specifically* what new mechanism v6 supports for providers to
|> realize their service differentiation without limiting IP addresses, and show
|> why providers will be inclined to make the switch.
|
|Today, ISPs experience a cost advantage when they limit the number of
|addresses or provide only dynamic addresses. That cost advantage is
|a result of scarcity, and will therefore not exist in IPv6. If there
|is no cost advantage, there can be no differentiation.
No. ISPs use address counting as a surrogate for bandwidth measurement. They
also limit address stability to discourage server operation. The supposed
scarcity of addresses cannot explain the use of short DHCP leases for always-on
connections and the attempts to ban NAT. Beyond this there is the obvious
"cost advantage" of being able to collect a monthly fee for each address. This
"cost advantage" is not going to go away just because the ISP has more addresses
at its disposal. Why would you expect an ISP to give up this revenue stream?
Your theory that the ISP's "cost advantage" in limiting the number and stability
of addresses is solely (or even mostly) a result of scarcity is not consistent
with the ISP industry as it currently exists.
|We aren't here to provide methods of differentiation;
I'm not asking for such methods. I'm merely asking for some specifics to back
up the repeated assertions that ISPs are going to change their business models
and give everyone all the addresses they want.
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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 PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
