We're getting way outside IETF territory here. This is my last note on this subthread:
Dan Lanciani wrote: > > 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. Some of them in some regions of the world, perhaps. There are plenty who measure bandwidth consumption explicitly. > 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. Agreed. But here we are getting into potential regulatory territory and outside the IETF's scope for sure. > 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? Because one of their competitors decides to do so, forcing them to do so as well. Absent scarcity, charging for something that has zero cost simply isn't sustainable in a competitive market. Note, when I write cost I mean expense, not price. > 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. That industry grew up post-CIDR in a climate of scarcity. This is changing. > > |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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
