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

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 8:56 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). They aren't alone.
> But people pay it because they believe the ISP tale of how the adresses
> are in short supply blah, blah.
>
> It's hard to sell the scarcity value of IPv6 addresses !
>

I think that what they are actually doing there is distinguishing customers
who need a fixed address because they want to run a server and those who
have simpler needs.

While the amount charged is likely much more than the cost of providing the
address it is very likely to represent the additional cost of supporting
such users, especially the higher bandwidth they are likely to consume.

And there is going to be a cost associated with allowing consumers to keep
a static IP address. It is going to constrain their operations quite
significantly and prevent optimizations of the routing space they might
otherwise deploy.

At those levels the cost of customer support is most of the cost of
providing service. Having to tell a customer that their address needs to
change is expensive.

Neither of the two monopoly providers in my neighborhood supports that
service at all except as a 'business' package costing several hundred
dollars a month extra.

-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/