The demand for IPv4 addresses (was: IPv10)

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Thu, 29 December 2016 10:46 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D50B91295BA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 02:46:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.89
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.89 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=opendkim.org header.b=jveHZ4js; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com header.b=JaljC1Q+
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7wT9FcthLMxS for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 02:46:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 156F61294D6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 02:46:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id uBTAk4u9006082 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 29 Dec 2016 02:46:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1483008372; x=1483094772; bh=kmZIuZIE0AsrdTGrwX+Pv+lcbKnpRhXC+c4E+vZD32A=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=jveHZ4js8hANHQzYOYRM7edBywQkSDPKJ50abTrVCOs+U0hNPb4XJzoLynX+ZEKHI lWKD5h4Isv2Lp+m0AA+saaiqIIqT1chQlI3072wJgwvtVvbivs3mD5Tiqd/wyftxQK s1ZKPPYJExS8zZOhcRrDnQpfWS/yv4NYcCeKT8oQ=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1483008372; x=1483094772; i=@elandsys.com; bh=kmZIuZIE0AsrdTGrwX+Pv+lcbKnpRhXC+c4E+vZD32A=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=JaljC1Q+DjBiWsHXrStOUU/zKzdlSPiJWkatKLQbJG81S0xVbX7Xymwp/mPCbuz3a MNJxuca2yI6RiIZ6rXA5uaYZjvFij5lQ8RAqmHsI0mXLax6Lgpb9bGh/4bBi2l71nx Z36dxcQIW22pCk8bAlqUZ9QGfaqmFh2TznZXSiYs=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20161229021748.0bb40258@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 02:43:18 -0800
To: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>, Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?= <paf@frobbit.se>, ietf@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: The demand for IPv4 addresses (was: IPv10)
In-Reply-To: <B137A15F-A5C1-41BE-84B5-A12DF2D5AFFC@virtualized.org>
References: <HE1PR04MB14492A6FA01B592B6DD69093BD920@HE1PR04MB1449.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> <7F96C4EC-B762-4A2C-AF7E-20D92AE7F9CF@nic.cz> <CAEik=Cv0AXRTLKc1azgnKRrMtQxrC19kX5_RqaQNSt9nkDfPFw@mail.gmail.com> <049f01d2613f$c5431ef0$4fc95cd0$@tndh.net> <m2o9zv7bh5.wl-randy@psg.com> <alpine.DEB.2.10.1612282213390.18445@sleekfreak.ath.cx> <B137A15F-A5C1-41BE-84B5-A12DF2D5AFFC@virtualized.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/TAYrSzX9YRSv0LZFPtGHlVaGxe0>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 10:46:21 -0000

Hi David, Patrik,
At 20:27 28-12-2016, David Conrad wrote:
>Do you have some magic wand that can make that 
>happen?  It would seem the opposite is happening 
>-- the price for IPv4 addresses is climbing, 
>with rumors of some folks trying to corner the 
>market. This is, of course, unsurprising given 
>Economics 101 and the laws of supply and demand. 
>Should make for interesting times ahead for 
>those organizations that continue to demand IPv4 addresses.

There are interesting time ahead for anyone interested in the topic.

>My suspicion (hope?) is that the increased price 
>of IPv4 (and operational challenges dealing with 
>GGNAT) will encourage folks to take IPv6 more seriously.

The opportunity to take IPv6 seriously was not 
taken seriously.  I doubt that moving to IPv6 
will be about technical challenges.

At 23:17 28-12-2016, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>...in combination with the increased a. 
>announcements of unannounced (regardless of 
>whether it is allocated or not) address space; 
>and ultimately b. announcements of address space 
>that is announced (as people will just not care 
>if someone on the other side of the planet use the space or not).

The thread at 
https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2016/006129.html may be informative.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy