Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|We're getting way outside IETF territory here.
Come on. Understanding the availability of global addresses from ISPs is
critical to analyzing the need for various kinds of local addressing solutions.
It is unreasonable to assert such availability as a justification for removing
local address space and then claim that discussion of the assertion is out of
bounds.
|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.
Some, as in pretty much every consumer- and small-business-level ISP in the US.
|There are plenty who
|measure bandwidth consumption explicitly.
If you count ISPs that use bandwidth caps as an *additional* safeguard beyond
address limiting then this might rise to the level of "plenty."
|> 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.
The IETF defines the addressing architecture. The addressing architecture has
a dramatic effect on the market economics. You cannot refuse to consider those
effects on the grounds that they resemble regulation. This should be especially
true when you are discussing a new limitation on addressing flexibility that by
its very nature will give ISPs a huge financial benefit at the expense of end
users.
|> 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.
That's what they said about the phone companies, yet I still pay lots of monthly
fees for certain bit settings in the switch. I even pay for DTMF service even
though it costs less for the phone company to support than dial service.
|> 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.
The only scarcity that matters in this context is the lack of availability of
IP addresses to end users. IPv6 does not improve this situation at all. As
long as address allocation is controlled by the ISP there will be artificial
scarcity for the end user because this situation provides the ISPs with a
financial advantage. Most ISPs are in business to make money.
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
