It seems to me that these two can't both be true. IP Addresses cannot at
once be scarce enough to charge for and non-scarce enough that scarcity is
a non-issue.
Does anyone else see something schizoid about this discussion?
Not I. I, as an end user or small site, cannot use just any IP
Anthony,
Why? Their costs are based on the amount of capacity used, not the number of
computers connected. A transfer volume of 1 GB per month costs the
company the
same whether it is carried out by one computer or ten computers.
If they charge per computer they get more revenue without, as
Dah!
Rick L Johansen Jr
Phi Theta Kappa Academic Scholar
looking for funding for college this year (2002)
7201 Henderson Blvd SE
Deschutes Cove 4-C
Tumwater WA 98501-5661 USA
(360) 570-2242 Fax: (360) 943-5354 at Kinkos
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Effective 12-15-01: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
URL
On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Fred Baker wrote:
At 01:57 PM 11/28/2001, Charles Adams wrote:
This may be the wrong time to interject this, but I know of a local cable
company that requires you to register a single MAC address.
mine does that. I gave them the mac address of my router.
And even if not
So the actual question is: how do we ensure that ISPs are motivated
to charge per /64 for IPv6, rather than charge per /128?
Mandating the availability of RFC 3041 addresses would help.
Brian
Matt Crawford wrote:
It seems to me that these two can't both be true. IP Addresses cannot at
In the past, why did Ma Bell charge for telephone extensions on a per instrument
basis? Its was just another way for them to make $$.
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Eric writes:
The cable companies want to charge per computer
...
Why? Their costs are based on the amount of capacity used,
At 02:15 29/11/01, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
I have Cable Modem service from Time Warner Road Runner in NYC.
The way they work it you get up to 5 IP addresses for each cable
modem you have.
This is typical of most {NB: not all, most} currently deployed
residential IP/Cable Modem networks in at
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: trying to reconcile two threads
On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Fred Baker wrote:
At 01:57 PM 11/28/2001, Charles Adams wrote:
This may be the wrong time to interject this, but I know of a local cable
company that requires you to register a single MAC address.
mine does that. I
Fred Baker wrote:
At 01:57 PM 11/28/2001, Charles Adams wrote:
This may be the wrong time to interject this, but I know of a local cable
company that requires you to register a single MAC address.
mine does that. I gave them the mac address of my router.
Yup, and my latest NAT box
*
* In the past, why did Ma Bell charge for telephone extensions on a per instrument
* basis?
Probably because Ma Bell was responsible for internal wiring, if
I recall correctly.
Bob Braden
On Thu, 29 Nov 2001, Bob Braden wrote:
*
* In the past, why did Ma Bell charge for telephone extensions on a per instrument
* basis?
Probably because Ma Bell was responsible for internal wiring, if
I recall correctly.
also you didn't own your phone.
Bob Braden
--
Charles,
At least for ATT Broadband, you can call them on the phone and give them a
new MAC address (since you are allowed to buy new computers!). In my case,
once the cable modem was up and working with one computer, I just called
them and gave them the MAC address for my router/firewall/NAT.
At 04:05 PM 11/27/2001, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
You'd think that an ISP, cable-company or not, would tend to charge by
volume or
connection time rather than the number of IP addresses in use.
dumb question.
I see a longish thread about so why does one need IPv6, there is in fact
no shortage
Does anyone else see something schizoid about this discussion?
The amount of time and BW people spend on it...
Alex.
It seems to me that these two can't both be true. IP Addresses cannot at
once be scarce enough to charge for and non-scarce enough that scarcity
is
a non-issue.
I don't think anybody's actually saying that addresses aren't scarce;
they're saying that NAT solves the scarcity problem.
Fred I see a longish thread about the fact that some cable companies
Fred apparently are desperate to charge per IP address (something one can
Fred only do if IP addresses are in fact a scarce resource)
I think you miss the point here. The cable companies want to charge per
At 02:19 PM 11/28/01, Fred Baker wrote:
At 04:05 PM 11/27/2001, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
You'd think that an ISP, cable-company or not, would tend to charge by
volume or
connection time rather than the number of IP addresses in use.
dumb question.
I see a longish thread about so why does one
It seems to me that these two can't both be true. IP Addresses cannot at
once be scarce enough to charge for and non-scarce enough that
scarcity is
a non-issue.
Fred,
scarcity is not the point. Differential pricing is.
ISPs need a way to charge vastly different prices for business and
At 11:19 AM 11/28/2001 -0800, Fred Baker wrote:
I see a longish thread about the fact that some cable companies apparently
are desperate to charge per IP address (something one can only do if IP
addresses are in fact a scarce resource) and want to nullify a technology
that might mask the
Fred writes:
It seems to me that these two can't both be true.
IP Addresses cannot at once be scarce enough to
charge for and non-scarce enough that scarcity is
a non-issue.
They are becoming scarce in the way that they are managed; they are not yet
scarce in absolute terms (total number of
Eric writes:
The cable companies want to charge per computer
...
Why? Their costs are based on the amount of capacity used, not the number of
computers connected. A transfer volume of 1 GB per month costs the company the
same whether it is carried out by one computer or ten computers.
. --
www.scottsboro.org
Charles
-Original Message-
From: Eric Rosen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 2:29 PM
To: Fred Baker
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: trying to reconcile two threads
Fred I see a longish thread about the fact that some cable companies
Fred
It's quite feasible for
devices to initiate the communication instead.
Only if each device talks to only one external host (or a fixed set of
hosts). If I want to check my fridge from an arbitrary host, I'm out of
luck, unless we introduce some kind of rendevous proxy.
I wish it were per-residence pricing. Here, if you want a 2nd (3rd, 4th,
...) IP address, the cable ISP expects you to connect a 2nd (3rd, 4th,
...) cable modem to the cable line. And they then charge additional fees
for each such additional connection.
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL
At 01:57 PM 11/28/2001, Charles Adams wrote:
This may be the wrong time to interject this, but I know of a local cable
company that requires you to register a single MAC address.
mine does that. I gave them the mac address of my router.
As a very rough rule of thumb: In a competitive situation, prices tend
towards costs plus some profit margin. In monopoly situations, a
profit seeking monopolist tries to maximize their profits by pricing
at the benefit to the customer minus just enough to give the
customer some incentive to
I have Cable Modem service from Time Warner Road Runner in NYC.
The way they work it you get up to 5 IP addresses for each cable
modem you have. The problem I have run into is that the modem gets
assigned the number of addresses you pay for up front.
The modem then assigns them, one to each
At 03:51 PM 11/28/2001 -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
IP Addresses cannot at once be scarce enough to charge for and
non-scarce enough that scarcity is a non-issue.
IPv4 scarcity is an issue, at least for customers. Whether it's
an issue for large ISPs is a different question.
The cable ISP
IP Addresses cannot at once be scarce enough to charge for and
non-scarce enough that scarcity is a non-issue.
IPv4 scarcity is an issue, at least for customers. Whether it's
an issue for large ISPs is a different question.
The cable ISP isn't really charging per-IP addresses; rather it's
29 matches
Mail list logo
