Re: IPv6 Thought Experiment

[Martin Hannigan]

On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 18:59 Owen DeLong  wrote:

>
>
> > On Oct 2, 2019, at 09:33 , Antonios Chariton 
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear list,
> > First of all, let me apologize if this post is not allowed by the list.
> To my best interpretation of the guidelines [1] it is allowed, but may be
> in a gray area due to rule #7.
> >
> > I would like to propose the following thought experiment about IPv6, and
> I would like your opinion on what you believe would happen in such a case.
> Feel free to reply on or off list.
> >
> > What if, globally, and starting at January 1st, 2020, someone (imagine a
> government or similar, but with global reach) imposed an IPv4 tax. For
> every IPv4 address on the Global Internet Routing Table, you had to pay a
> tax. Let’s assume that this can be imposed, must be paid, and cannot be
> avoided using some loophole. Let’s say that this tax would be $2, and it
> would double, every 3 or 6 months.
>
> You’re talking about starting at $1536 per quarter for a /24 and doubling
> that every three to 6 months?
>
> Who, exactly gets all this money in your make money fast scheme here?
>
> I’d say it would provide an impressive motivation to get rid of IPv4, but
> I also would say that nobody would ever stand for such a tax.
>
> > What do you think would happen? Would it be the only way to reach 100%
> IPv6 deployment, or even that wouldn’t be sufficient?
>
> The internet’s version of the Boston Tea Party.
>

I can represent that. +1

Best,

Martin
Boston, USA

Re: IPv6 Thought Experiment

[William Herrin]

On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 9:33 AM Antonios Chariton 
wrote:

> What if, globally, and starting at January 1st, 2020, someone (imagine a
> government or similar, but with global reach) imposed an IPv4 tax. For
> every IPv4 address on the Global Internet Routing Table, you had to pay a
> tax. Let’s assume that this can be imposed, must be paid, and cannot be
> avoided using some loophole. Let’s say that this tax would be $2, and it
> would double, every 3 or 6 months.
>

Hi Antonios,

Folks already pay a "tax" for IPv4 addresses. For example, in AWS you pay
$0.005/hr ($3.60/month) for an "elastic IP address" while the /56 of
globally routable IPv6 addresses in your VPC are completely free.


What do you think would happen? Would it be the only way to reach 100% IPv6
> deployment, or even that wouldn’t be sufficient?
>

Absolutely nothing that hasn't already happened, except perhaps annoy
people in fresh ways. You don't have a mass-market Internet service without
an IPv4 address, you do have one without an IPv6 address, and managing and
securing both requires high-skill manpower which is one of your
organization's highest-cost assets. No nominal tax or fee will ever be
enough to weigh meaningfully in that cost.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: IPv6 Thought Experiment

[Owen DeLong]

> On Oct 2, 2019, at 09:33 , Antonios Chariton  wrote:
> 
> Dear list,
> First of all, let me apologize if this post is not allowed by the list. To my 
> best interpretation of the guidelines [1] it is allowed, but may be in a gray 
> area due to rule #7. 
> 
> I would like to propose the following thought experiment about IPv6, and I 
> would like your opinion on what you believe would happen in such a case. Feel 
> free to reply on or off list.
> 
> What if, globally, and starting at January 1st, 2020, someone (imagine a 
> government or similar, but with global reach) imposed an IPv4 tax. For every 
> IPv4 address on the Global Internet Routing Table, you had to pay a tax. 
> Let’s assume that this can be imposed, must be paid, and cannot be avoided 
> using some loophole. Let’s say that this tax would be $2, and it would 
> double, every 3 or 6 months.

You’re talking about starting at $1536 per quarter for a /24 and doubling that 
every three to 6 months?

Who, exactly gets all this money in your make money fast scheme here?

I’d say it would provide an impressive motivation to get rid of IPv4, but I 
also would say that nobody would ever stand for such a tax.

> What do you think would happen? Would it be the only way to reach 100% IPv6 
> deployment, or even that wouldn’t be sufficient?

The internet’s version of the Boston Tea Party.

I think the backlash would exceed any possible positive outcome.

> And for bonus points, consider the following: what if all certification 
> bodies of equipment, for certifications like FCC’s or CE in Europe, for 
> applications after Jan 1st 2023 would include a “MUST NOT support IPv4”..

That one is significantly more practical than your first suggestion, but still 
pretty unlikely from a practical perspective. For one thing, FCC doesn’t 
certify gear outside of RF considerations. CE mostly certifies that it’s not 
going to burn your house down. THey’re more like UL or CSA than FCC.

By the way, CE, UL, CSA are among several other “Nationally Recognized Testing 
Laboratories” for products that need to meet certain consumer safety standards.

> What I am trying to understand is whether deploying IPv6 is a pure financial 
> problem. If it is, in this scenario, it would very very soon become much more 
> pricey to not deploy it.

I think it is more of a perceived financial problem than a pure financial 
problem.

I think that the problem is primarily one of perceptions:
1.  Executives don’t perceive the benefits to their operation.
2.  Staff and Executives overestimate the cost vs. the equipment 
they already have in place.
3.  Due to the above perception errors, not deploying or delaying 
deployment as long as possible is perceived as a no-brainer.

> I know there are a lot of gaps in this, for example who imposes this, what is 
> the "Global Internet Routing Table", etc. but let’s try to see around them, 
> to the core idea behind them.

Well, even just looking at the core idea, I think that you’d create a very 
strong backlash and little else, even if there were some way to implement it.

Owen

Re: IPv6 Thought Experiment

[Justin Streiner]

I suspect that even if there was an entity with the reach to impose such a
tax, people will resort to deploying CGN more, to hide their IPv4 usage to
the extent possible.  That's time, money, and effort taken away from moving
to IPv6.

You might also find that many taxed organizations will simply ignore the
tax or refuse to pay it, under the assumption that the taxing entity
doesn't have standing to impose such taxes.  Someone from Russia is likely
to take a tax notice from, say, some agency in the USA and toss it in the
circular file :)

As others have said, threatening the Internet community with punitive
action is a sure way to discourage people from adopting IPv6.  While the
pace of adoption might not be acceptable to some, everyone has to move at
their own pace, or vote with their wallets where possible.

Thank you
jms

On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 12:34 PM Antonios Chariton 
wrote:

> Dear list,
> First of all, let me apologize if this post is not allowed by the list. To
> my best interpretation of the guidelines [1] it is allowed, but may be in a
> gray area due to rule #7.
>
> I would like to propose the following thought experiment about IPv6, and I
> would like your opinion on what you believe would happen in such a case.
> Feel free to reply on or off list.
>
> What if, globally, and starting at January 1st, 2020, someone (imagine a
> government or similar, but with global reach) imposed an IPv4 tax. For
> every IPv4 address on the Global Internet Routing Table, you had to pay a
> tax. Let’s assume that this can be imposed, must be paid, and cannot be
> avoided using some loophole. Let’s say that this tax would be $2, and it
> would double, every 3 or 6 months.
>
> What do you think would happen? Would it be the only way to reach 100%
> IPv6 deployment, or even that wouldn’t be sufficient?
>
> And for bonus points, consider the following: what if all certification
> bodies of equipment, for certifications like FCC’s or CE in Europe, for
> applications after Jan 1st 2023 would include a “MUST NOT support IPv4”..
>
> What I am trying to understand is whether deploying IPv6 is a pure
> financial problem. If it is, in this scenario, it would very very soon
> become much more pricey to not deploy it.
>
> I know there are a lot of gaps in this, for example who imposes this, what
> is the "Global Internet Routing Table", etc. but let’s try to see around
> them, to the core idea behind them.
>
> Thanks,
> Antonis
>
> ---
> Links
> ---
> 1: https://nanog.org/resources/usage-guidelines/
>

Re: IPv6 Thought Experiment

[Daniel Seagraves]

> On Oct 2, 2019, at 4:04 PM, Nick Hilliard  wrote:
> 
> Antonios Chariton wrote on 02/10/2019 17:33:
>> What if, globally, and starting at January 1st, 2020, someone (imagine a 
>> government or similar, but with global reach) imposed an IPv4 tax. For every 
>> IPv4 address on the Global Internet Routing Table, you had to pay a tax. 
>> Let’s assume that this can be imposed, must be paid, and cannot be avoided 
>> using some loophole. Let’s say that this tax would be $2, and it would 
>> double, every 3 or 6 months.
> 
> Interesting idea.  Let's say it started off at $2 / month and doubled every 3 
> months.  At the end of month 12, it would be $32/month.  After 5 years, we'd 
> be talking about just over $2 million per IP address per month, i.e. a little 
> over half a billion dollars per /24.

What happens when v4 is gone? Surely you won’t let it end there - After all, If 
you have the ability and infrastructure to do this, why not tax IPv6 too? This 
would cut down on the number of “undesirables" on the internet by pricing it 
out of the reach of all but the largest megacorporations. Eventually we can 
reduce the internet to a few dozen authorized parties in each region and we’ll 
only need enough IP addresses for those. I can imagine a number of governments 
around the world would be very interested in this.

Re: IPv6 Thought Experiment

[Nick Hilliard]

Antonios Chariton wrote on 02/10/2019 17:33:
What if, globally, and starting at January 1st, 2020, someone (imagine a 
government or similar, but with global reach) imposed an IPv4 tax. For 
every IPv4 address on the Global Internet Routing Table, you had to pay 
a tax. Let’s assume that this can be imposed, must be paid, and cannot 
be avoided using some loophole. Let’s say that this tax would be $2, and 
it would double, every 3 or 6 months.


Interesting idea.  Let's say it started off at $2 / month and doubled 
every 3 months.  At the end of month 12, it would be $32/month.  After 5 
years, we'd be talking about just over $2 million per IP address per 
month, i.e. a little over half a billion dollars per /24.  In 10 years, 
that would increase to 562 trillion dollars per month for a /24.


Soon, you'd be talking about real money.

Please let me know if you wish to push ahead with this idea and I'll 
humbly offer to act as middle-man for taxation for a very simple and 
modest 1% of all transaction fees, or 0.94% if you can guarantee an 
exclusive deal.  Serious replies only please.


Nick

Re: IPv6 Thought Experiment

[Scott Weeks]

--
“MUST NOT support IPv4”..

I think a good start would be: "MUST support IPv6"!
---


Woah, there!  Hold your horses.  It's only been 20-something 
years.  You can't expect these things to happen overnight!  

>;-)
scott

Re: IPv6 Thought Experiment

[Steve Pointer]

> And for bonus points, consider the following: what if all certification 
> bodies of equipment, for certifications like FCC’s or CE in Europe, for 
> applications after Jan 1st 2023 would include a “MUST NOT support IPv4”..

I think a good start would be: "MUST support IPv6"!

Re: IPv6 Thought Experiment

[Stephen Satchell]

On 10/2/19 9:33 AM, Antonios Chariton wrote:
> Dear list,
> First of all, let me apologize if this post is not allowed by the
> list. To my best interpretation of the guidelines [1] it is allowed, but
> may be in a gray area due to rule #7.
> 
> I would like to propose the following thought experiment about IPv6,
> and I would like your opinion on what you believe would happen in such a
> case. Feel free to reply on or off list.
> 
> What if, globally, and starting at January 1st, 2020, someone 
> (imagine a government or similar, but with global reach) imposed an 
> IPv4 tax. For every IPv4 address on the Global Internet Routing
> Table, you had to pay a tax. Let’s assume that this can be imposed,
> must be paid, and cannot be avoided using some loophole. Let’s say
> that this tax would be $2, and it would double, every 3 or 6 months.

Who exactly would be paying this tax?  The IPv4 address "owner"?  The
SWIP?  The end user who gets IPv4 via DHCP from his provider?

Tax paid to whom?

> What do you think would happen? Would it be the only way to reach 
> 100% IPv6 deployment, or even that wouldn’t be sufficient?
Well, a lot of money would change hands.  Somebody would be enriched by
the tax revenues.

> And for bonus points, consider the following: what if all
> certification bodies of equipment, for certifications like FCC’s or CE
> in Europe, for applications after Jan 1st 2023 would include a “MUST
> NOT support IPv4”..

So how would that affect users trying to access IPv4 resources?

> What I am trying to understand is whether deploying IPv6 is a pure
> financial problem. If it is, in this scenario, it would very very soon
> become much more pricey to not deploy it.

First, there are equipment issues -- not all gear "plays nice" with
IPv6, especially older gear still in use.  There is a capital cost
associated with upgrading gear, and not all organizations and people can
afford the hit.

There are policies in place, beyond the RFCs, by companies and
governments that would need to be updated, and the tax you suggest
doesn't even begin to attack the problems.

> I know there are a lot of gaps in this, for example who imposes this,
> what is the "Global Internet Routing Table", etc. but let’s try to
> see around them, to the core idea behind them.
Has BCP-38 been updated to include IPv6?
https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp38

All the examples are IPv4.  Additionally, one of the reference is this:
Baker, F., "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers", RFC 1812, June 1995.

If people are serious about IPv6, isn't it time to update the Best
Practices documents, particularly BCP-38 et al, to address IPv6 as well
as IPv4?

Re: IPv6 Thought Experiment

[Antonios Chariton]

> On 2 Oct 2019, at 20:23, John Levine  wrote:
> 
> In article <5dcae7a8-1d33-4ea2-bbb1-7a3e8132d...@gmail.com> you write:
>> What do you think would happen? Would it be the only way to reach 100% IPv6 
>> deployment, or even that wouldn’t be sufficient?
> 
> If you have to impose an artificial tax to force people to use IPv6,
> you've clearly admitted that IPv6 is a failure and can't stand on its
> own merits.  Should this happen, I'd expect massive use of CGN to hide
> entire networks behind a single IPv4 address, and a mass exodus of
> hosting business to other places which are not so stupid.  Mobile networks
> would be less affected because many of them are IPv6 internally already.


I understand, but I think there’s something else here.. If we keep deploying 
IPv6 at this rate, we will have it in X years. If such a policy was enforced, 
it would *accelerate* the transition, not force it. It would kind of force it 
in a way that companies that can’t comply would maybe seize to exist, but 
overall it would accelerate the IPv6 adoption. This is the main thing I was 
trying to “achieve” here. And the question is, if instead of reaching 100% 
deployment in X years, we reached it in X/2 or X/10 or X/100, would we be 
ready? Would the RIRs be ready? Would the vendors be ready? Would the equipment 
be ready? Could we sustain the increase of the routing tables?

Maybe all of us got kinda lazy because it’s moving at a so slow pace.. I don’t 
know, maybe we didn’t, and we just have so many problems that we solve them at 
literally the last possible moment (or a bit after that). 

Antonis 

RE: IPv6 Thought Experiment

[Naslund, Steve]

It's certainly financial but it's not just companies being cheap. For example 
for smaller companies with a limited staff and small margins. They may want to 
have v6 everywhere but lack the resources to do it. It would for certain speed 
up the process but there would be collateral damage in the process.

Here is the question being dealt with in the corporate environment.  Why should 
I prioritize moving everything to IPv6 now instead of my other zillion IT 
projects that actually are visible to my customers and business users?  It is 
simply, almost always, a cost benefit question.  I would have to convince the 
company that it is in their financial best interest to go that route.  I think 
over time the migration happens organically as more people are familiar with v6 
and all the equipment and setup schemes start using v6 as the default.  I would 
be hard pressed to come up with a reason for a hard deadline.  Making life 
easier for NANOG engineers is not high on most corporate priority lists ☺

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL

Re: IPv6 Thought Experiment

[John Levine]

In article <5dcae7a8-1d33-4ea2-bbb1-7a3e8132d...@gmail.com> you write:
>What do you think would happen? Would it be the only way to reach 100% IPv6 
>deployment, or even that wouldn’t be sufficient?

If you have to impose an artificial tax to force people to use IPv6,
you've clearly admitted that IPv6 is a failure and can't stand on its
own merits.  Should this happen, I'd expect massive use of CGN to hide
entire networks behind a single IPv4 address, and a mass exodus of
hosting business to other places which are not so stupid.  Mobile networks
would be less affected because many of them are IPv6 internally already.

>What I am trying to understand is whether deploying IPv6 is a pure financial 
>problem.

To some degree, anything is a financial problem.  How about if I
charge you a hundred dollars for every packet you send using IP rather
than CLNS and CLNP and a thousand dollars for every virtual circuit
using TCP rather than X.25?

RE: IPv6 Thought Experiment

[Naslund, Steve]

A few thoughts:


1.  What global organization has the ability to impose a tax on any 
nation’s citizens?

2.  Do you not see an issue with making everyone worldwide get rid of every 
device that supports v4?  Kind of a burden for a developing country, no?  Also, 
a bit of an e-waste problem I would think.

3.  Do you think that any organization with the power to tax some Internet 
usage (like v6) will stop there and not figure a way of continuing the cash 
flow forever?

4.  The FCC and other standardization organizations often have statutory 
authority to manage things like spectrum management and consumer safety.  What 
would be their authority to mandate v6 usage?

5.  Why not just get carriers to make v4 service an optional extra just 
like static address requests?  There is no reason to empower government more 
than they already are.  Simple economic pressure would work.

6.  Why is your issue more important than any other so-called global issue 
like carbon taxes, endangered species, human trafficking, etc?  Do you want to 
go to a world government to encourage adoption of IPv6?  Why should anyone care 
about that other than us engineers working under the hood

7.  If someone like say Botswana says we are not paying your tax, do you 
intend to send in UN Peacekeeping Forces to collect the money owed?  Are we 
going to war with North Korean if they won’t let us check their routers for the 
presence of v4 addresses?

8.  What is the economic or social reasoning behind obsoleting ipV6?  Is 
this really an existential global issue or are you just inconvenienced by 
dealing with both address families?  While we think it a big deal here on 
NANOG, do you really think that the public sees that issue somewhere in their 
top 20 priorities?  I doubt it.

9.  Some world government enforcing global network standard migrations?  
What could possibly go wrong there ☺.  Do permanent UN Security Council members 
retain the right to veto these standards?

10.   I think at one time the US Government demanded POSIX compliance for all 
of their systems.  That did not even work on the scale of the US Government 
managing their own systems.  Why would this work any better?  Governments are 
notoriously bad at managing their own IT systems, I don’t think we want them 
managing all of ours as well.

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL

From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Antonios Chariton
Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2019 11:38 AM
To: NANOG 
Subject: Re: IPv6 Thought Experiment

To clarify that further, this would be a monthly tax. So $2 / month.


On 2 Oct 2019, at 19:33, Antonios Chariton 
mailto:daknob@gmail.com>> wrote:

Dear list,
First of all, let me apologize if this post is not allowed by the list. To my 
best interpretation of the guidelines [1] it is allowed, but may be in a gray 
area due to rule #7.

I would like to propose the following thought experiment about IPv6, and I 
would like your opinion on what you believe would happen in such a case. Feel 
free to reply on or off list.

What if, globally, and starting at January 1st, 2020, someone (imagine a 
government or similar, but with global reach) imposed an IPv4 tax. For every 
IPv4 address on the Global Internet Routing Table, you had to pay a tax. Let’s 
assume that this can be imposed, must be paid, and cannot be avoided using some 
loophole. Let’s say that this tax would be $2, and it would double, every 3 or 
6 months.

What do you think would happen? Would it be the only way to reach 100% IPv6 
deployment, or even that wouldn’t be sufficient?

And for bonus points, consider the following: what if all certification bodies 
of equipment, for certifications like FCC’s or CE in Europe, for applications 
after Jan 1st 2023 would include a “MUST NOT support IPv4”..

What I am trying to understand is whether deploying IPv6 is a pure financial 
problem. If it is, in this scenario, it would very very soon become much more 
pricey to not deploy it.

I know there are a lot of gaps in this, for example who imposes this, what is 
the "Global Internet Routing Table", etc. but let’s try to see around them, to 
the core idea behind them.

Thanks,
Antonis

---
Links
---
1: 
https://nanog.org/resources/usage-guidelines/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nanog.org_resources_usage-2Dguidelines_=DwMFaQ=ZyuC0pi8BQ0JtN0UhY3DPMRPQOzp-0mvXzAggKz74wI=ZOBJlMbaeeVccIxR59VB6LkI6RgrNZbvYF8H4DSvu2w=4rR7Ud6Vljd1pXdLAh2nQP63Hs8tI2xouHDLGEJ6sZQ=sM3SUK1qHxNP7ddTtji3wFHI-AL8Rrh4T4EZpNaMbEI=>

Re: IPv6 Thought Experiment

[Matt Harris]

On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 11:48 AM Dovid Bender  wrote:

> Antonios,
>
> It's certainly financial but it's not just companies being cheap. For
> example for smaller companies with a limited staff and small margins. They
> may want to have v6 everywhere but lack the resources to do it. It would
> for certain speed up the process but there would be collateral damage in
> the process.
>

For a small organization with limited staff and small margins, I'm curious
where the actual burden in supporting IPv6 lies. In my experience, it's not
any more costly than deploying IPv4 is (and really, less so over the past
couple of years since you can get IPv6 RIR allocations while adding IPv4
capacity means shelling out thousands or tens of thousands of capex
dollars.) I've never had an IX or transit provider or anyone else charge me
more because I'm running IPv6 in addition to my IPv4, and any gear that
doesn't support IPv6 at this point is likely old enough to be EoL and
requiring replacement due to potential (major, very costly) security issues
anyhow.

Re: IPv6 Thought Experiment

[Matt Harris]

On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 11:33 AM Antonios Chariton 
wrote:

> Dear list,
> First of all, let me apologize if this post is not allowed by the list. To
> my best interpretation of the guidelines [1] it is allowed, but may be in a
> gray area due to rule #7.
>
> I would like to propose the following thought experiment about IPv6, and I
> would like your opinion on what you believe would happen in such a case.
> Feel free to reply on or off list.
>
> What if, globally, and starting at January 1st, 2020, someone (imagine a
> government or similar, but with global reach) imposed an IPv4 tax. For
> every IPv4 address on the Global Internet Routing Table, you had to pay a
> tax. Let’s assume that this can be imposed, must be paid, and cannot be
> avoided using some loophole. Let’s say that this tax would be $2, and it
> would double, every 3 or 6 months.
>

By virtue of depletion at the RIRs, there's effectively already a one-time
IPv4 tax, the cost of procuring the addresses. This has indeed increased
over time, and eventually we will reach a point where for many
organizations acquiring IPv4 address space is not realistic either because
they cannot afford it or (if you look at someone like AWS/Azure/etc who
blow through lots of addresses) just won't be able to acquire the scale
they need. This is happening on its own.

IPv6 deployment is happening, albeit slowly. Mobile providers are
increasingly using IPv6 traffic to avoid having to push more CGNAT gear,
consumer and small business ISPs are getting on board bit by bit, and while
there may have been some point a bunch of years ago in looking into ways to
speed adoption prior to the RIR depletion situation that we're now faced
with, I'm not sure there's any meaningful benefit to trying to artificially
push things forward at this point.

Re: IPv6 Thought Experiment

[Antonios Chariton]

Let me clarify that I 100% agree with both Job and Dovid. It is indeed a 
terrible idea. And not everyone is even convinced IPv6 is the right next step. 
So it’s obviously wrong to push people towards where someone thinks, even if 
it’s the majority.

I just had a hunch that even then we would still not see IPv6 adoption.. So 
there must be many more problems that we overlook. I just wanted to hear what 
other people think on the matter. 

> On 2 Oct 2019, at 19:43, Job Snijders  wrote:
> 
> It appears in your thought experiment, a stick is dressed up like a carrot.
> 
> I’m not a fan of deploying purely punitive strategies to promote adoption; 
> technologies should stand on their own and be able to convince the potential 
> users based on their merit, not based on penalties.

Re: IPv6 Thought Experiment

[Job Snijders]

It appears in your thought experiment, a stick is dressed up like a carrot.

I’m not a fan of deploying purely punitive strategies to promote adoption;
technologies should stand on their own and be able to convince the
potential users based on their merit, not based on penalties.

Re: IPv6 Thought Experiment

[Dovid Bender]

Antonios,

It's certainly financial but it's not just companies being cheap. For
example for smaller companies with a limited staff and small margins. They
may want to have v6 everywhere but lack the resources to do it. It would
for certain speed up the process but there would be collateral damage in
the process.



On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 12:34 PM Antonios Chariton 
wrote:

> Dear list,
> First of all, let me apologize if this post is not allowed by the list. To
> my best interpretation of the guidelines [1] it is allowed, but may be in a
> gray area due to rule #7.
>
> I would like to propose the following thought experiment about IPv6, and I
> would like your opinion on what you believe would happen in such a case.
> Feel free to reply on or off list.
>
> What if, globally, and starting at January 1st, 2020, someone (imagine a
> government or similar, but with global reach) imposed an IPv4 tax. For
> every IPv4 address on the Global Internet Routing Table, you had to pay a
> tax. Let’s assume that this can be imposed, must be paid, and cannot be
> avoided using some loophole. Let’s say that this tax would be $2, and it
> would double, every 3 or 6 months.
>
> What do you think would happen? Would it be the only way to reach 100%
> IPv6 deployment, or even that wouldn’t be sufficient?
>
> And for bonus points, consider the following: what if all certification
> bodies of equipment, for certifications like FCC’s or CE in Europe, for
> applications after Jan 1st 2023 would include a “MUST NOT support IPv4”..
>
> What I am trying to understand is whether deploying IPv6 is a pure
> financial problem. If it is, in this scenario, it would very very soon
> become much more pricey to not deploy it.
>
> I know there are a lot of gaps in this, for example who imposes this, what
> is the "Global Internet Routing Table", etc. but let’s try to see around
> them, to the core idea behind them.
>
> Thanks,
> Antonis
>
> ---
> Links
> ---
> 1: https://nanog.org/resources/usage-guidelines/
>

Re: IPv6 Thought Experiment

[Antonios Chariton]

To clarify that further, this would be a monthly tax. So $2 / month. 

> On 2 Oct 2019, at 19:33, Antonios Chariton  wrote:
> 
> Dear list,
> First of all, let me apologize if this post is not allowed by the list. To my 
> best interpretation of the guidelines [1] it is allowed, but may be in a gray 
> area due to rule #7. 
> 
> I would like to propose the following thought experiment about IPv6, and I 
> would like your opinion on what you believe would happen in such a case. Feel 
> free to reply on or off list.
> 
> What if, globally, and starting at January 1st, 2020, someone (imagine a 
> government or similar, but with global reach) imposed an IPv4 tax. For every 
> IPv4 address on the Global Internet Routing Table, you had to pay a tax. 
> Let’s assume that this can be imposed, must be paid, and cannot be avoided 
> using some loophole. Let’s say that this tax would be $2, and it would 
> double, every 3 or 6 months.
> 
> What do you think would happen? Would it be the only way to reach 100% IPv6 
> deployment, or even that wouldn’t be sufficient?
> 
> And for bonus points, consider the following: what if all certification 
> bodies of equipment, for certifications like FCC’s or CE in Europe, for 
> applications after Jan 1st 2023 would include a “MUST NOT support IPv4”..
> 
> What I am trying to understand is whether deploying IPv6 is a pure financial 
> problem. If it is, in this scenario, it would very very soon become much more 
> pricey to not deploy it.
> 
> I know there are a lot of gaps in this, for example who imposes this, what is 
> the "Global Internet Routing Table", etc. but let’s try to see around them, 
> to the core idea behind them.
> 
> Thanks,
> Antonis 
> 
> ---
> Links
> ---
> 1: https://nanog.org/resources/usage-guidelines/ 
> 

IPv6 Thought Experiment

[Antonios Chariton]

Dear list,
First of all, let me apologize if this post is not allowed by the list. To my 
best interpretation of the guidelines [1] it is allowed, but may be in a gray 
area due to rule #7. 

I would like to propose the following thought experiment about IPv6, and I 
would like your opinion on what you believe would happen in such a case. Feel 
free to reply on or off list.

What if, globally, and starting at January 1st, 2020, someone (imagine a 
government or similar, but with global reach) imposed an IPv4 tax. For every 
IPv4 address on the Global Internet Routing Table, you had to pay a tax. Let’s 
assume that this can be imposed, must be paid, and cannot be avoided using some 
loophole. Let’s say that this tax would be $2, and it would double, every 3 or 
6 months.

What do you think would happen? Would it be the only way to reach 100% IPv6 
deployment, or even that wouldn’t be sufficient?

And for bonus points, consider the following: what if all certification bodies 
of equipment, for certifications like FCC’s or CE in Europe, for applications 
after Jan 1st 2023 would include a “MUST NOT support IPv4”..

What I am trying to understand is whether deploying IPv6 is a pure financial 
problem. If it is, in this scenario, it would very very soon become much more 
pricey to not deploy it.

I know there are a lot of gaps in this, for example who imposes this, what is 
the "Global Internet Routing Table", etc. but let’s try to see around them, to 
the core idea behind them.

Thanks,
Antonis 

---
Links
---
1: https://nanog.org/resources/usage-guidelines/