Re: [dhcwg] We can change the world in a 1000 ways (IPv4 over IPv6)

[Lee Howard <[e-mail]>]

On 11/15/13 5:56 AM, "Simon Hobson" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Lee Howard wrote:
>>>Its worse than that.  Given that v4 has been monetized by big ISPs, it
>>>is
>>>actaully a revenue loss for them to transition to v6 on a large scale.
>>
>>Do you mean IPv6-only is a revenue loss, or dual-stack or some kind of
>>transition mechanism?
>>I'm pretty sure I don't understand your point.
>
>I suspect he may be referring to the way many ISPs treat IPv4 addresses
>as something they can charge for. For example, one of the big ISPs over
>here (BT Internet) charge (IIRC) £5 (so around $7 to $8)/month if you
>want a fixed address - which can be 25% or more extra on the monthly cost
>(depending on the package you buy).

Charging for a stable, unchanging address works as well/poorly in IPv4 and
IPv6 (except s/address/prefix).

Is this an actual consideration from an operator who has this use case, or
is this somebody alleging problems based on the assumption that ISPs are
evil?  Given that many big ISPs are deploying IPv6, is this a real concern?

Lee