I dont think my customers would see it that way. They would say, "we'll just go with ATT or Comcast instead." Poof, there goes that MRR!
-The other WISP Mike On Jul 5, 2015 9:54 AM, "Mel Beckman" <[email protected]> wrote: > Mike, > > They certainly won't like it. But the situation is the same everywhere. > It's not like they're being gouged. > > -mel via cell > > > On Jul 5, 2015, at 9:30 AM, Mike Hammett <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > You don't work with end-users much, do you? The same types that follow > Free Press and what not about how their ISP breaks it off in their backside > (despite no concrete evidence - see the recent M-Labs, Free Press > incident)... they won't take too kindly to being told to pay more for IPv4 > to make whatever game work properly. It has to be seamless and it has to be > free. > > > > > > > > > > ----- > > Mike Hammett > > Intelligent Computing Solutions > > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > > > > > Midwest Internet Exchange > > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Mel Beckman" <[email protected]> > > To: "Josh Moore" <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected] > > Sent: Sunday, July 5, 2015 10:52:36 AM > > Subject: Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion > > > > Dual-stack doesn't require public IPv4 addresses. Since IPv4 is in short > supply, providers must still do what they can to conserve them. This means > NAT, with appropriate management to not overload any one IP, or CGN if you > want to keep public IPv4 (but no longer unique ones) on CPE. Not every > customer needs direct IPv4 connectivity without NAT; those that do must pay > for it. If those who have it aren't willing to pay, they must give up their > public IPv4 address. > > > > That is the most efficient direct IPv4 provisioning concept we have > today. Given the history of IPv6 adoption, it's clear that people won't > move until they experience pain sticking with IPv4. > > > > "On demand" IPv4 isn't currently being done anywhere AFAIK, and since > we're abandoning IPv4 it's not likely anyone has that on their priority > list. It's not a good policy to go out of your way to make IPv4 users > comfortable. IPv4 is going to go away, and the sooner customers get that > and go to IPv6, the sooner the pain will stop :) > > > > -mel beckman > > > >> On Jul 4, 2015, at 6:02 PM, Josh Moore <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Traditional dual stack deployments implement both IPv4 and IPv6 to the > CPE. > >> Consider the following: > >> > >> An ISP is at 90% IPv4 utilization and would like to deploy dual stack > with the purpose of allowing their subscriber base to continue to grow > regardless of the depletion of the IPv4 space. Current dual stack best > practices seem to recommend deploying BOTH IPv4 and IPv6 to every CPE. If > this is the case, and BOTH are still required, then how does IPv6 help with > the v4 address depletion crisis? Many sites and services would still need > legacy IPv4 compatibility. Sure, CGN technology may be a solution but what > about applications that need direct IPv4 connectivity without NAT? It seems > that there should be a mechanism to enable on-demand and efficient IPv4 > address consumption ONLY when needed. My question is this: What, if any, > solutions like this exist? If no solution exists then what is the next best > thing? What would the overall IPv6 migration strategy and goal be? > >> > >> Sorry for the length of this email but these are legitimate concerns > and while I understand the need for IPv6 and the importance of getting > there; I don't understand exactly HOW that can be done considering the > immediate issue: IPv4 depletion. > >> > >> > >> Thanks > >> > >> Joshua Moore > >> Network Engineer > >> ATC Broadband > >> 912.632.3161 > > >
