IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Operational Consensus on deployment

Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Tue, 05 August 2014 02:09 UTC

Return-Path: <owen@delong.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42B181A0B03 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 19:09:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.992
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.992 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no
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 OC5K0KWt9qFF for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 19:09:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDD051A0B0C for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 19:09:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.62] (ip72-199-16-177.sd.sd.cox.net [72.199.16.177]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id s7528r0C006664 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 4 Aug 2014 19:08:54 -0700
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.3 owen.delong.com s7528r0C006664
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=delong.com; s=mail; t=1407204535; bh=bXxjQTw8Is5Bm6zfSOu6535Ox9g=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To; b=46/5i2P4DlVQDjuGzznaXlX4tFtmphp7LhHYf2tkIeaqknUWkj8RfjqWsDNzKqJ0E i40LKKMGP6ybgbkWCstnmCyXR+J+wiv0JPAmcjwc1EorVbHPwG3LM047bFqPhrOyc5 1SRZjTVDPHsbVp2rzKnI/wxdcy6/8CD/wsbBt9cU=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <DDCCBBC8-8F5B-466D-985D-EBC9A1FBD6EB@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 19:08:48 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E7165C2D-94E1-45F3-9C64-5D27C51B3F4C@delong.com>
References: <256EAE0B-5C11-42C7-BCA1-CEC7EE6713A7@cisco.com> <28BBAD81-F9FE-43EB-BF49-E5B85C2AB218@cisco.com> <20140804231151.AAAEF1B7AB9F@rock.dv.isc.org> <DDCCBBC8-8F5B-466D-985D-EBC9A1FBD6EB@cisco.com>
To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0rc1 (owen.delong.com [192.159.10.2]); Mon, 04 Aug 2014 19:08:55 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/VGLSp7ydU3A0f8eDh6S7Ha0B4Q8
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Operational Consensus on deployment
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 02:09:14 -0000

On Aug 4, 2014, at 4:20 PM, Fred Baker (fred) <fred@cisco.com> wrote:

> 
> On Aug 4, 2014, at 4:11 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
> 
>> Azure would still need the IPv4 addresses because the rest of the
>> world as a whole has not moved to IPv6 yet.  While datacenters may
>> be able to move to IPv6 only internally there is still a external
>> need for IPv4 addresses.  IPv6 only gives some IPv4 address saving
>> but not that much on the server side.  We are still a long way from
>> turning off IPv4 servers.
> 
> That’s sort of the point of Tore’s document, with the exception that you can indeed move IPv4 addresses to *only* the edge using his mechanism.
> 
> That said, if you have an IPv6-capable data center and are selling it as a service to customers, that gives you a vehicle to discuss IPv6 with the customers. “I have a scarce resource that I can charge you for, and a plentiful resource I can charge you for. Which would you like to be charged for?”

FWIW, Hurricane Electric charges for IPv4. We do not charge for IPv6. We apply ARIN compliant needs tests to all North American customer allocations/assignments and appropriate RIPE/APNIC criteria in those regions.

Owen

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email