Re: [v6ops] Is there a problem? [was: Why enterprises aren't adopting IPv6]

[Philip Homburg <[e-mail]>]

> Eyeball providers are out of IPv4 addresses and acquisition cost
> exceeds customer value. Eyeball providers need a much larger supply
> of IPv4 addresses to support IPv4-only content providers than the
> content providers do.

As far as I know, eyeball providers have waited until the last possible
moment with offering IPv6 to customers. For example, my phone got IPv6 address
(on mobile) just weeks ago.

Even then, most countries have less than 50% adoption of IPv6 by eyeball
providers.

So it seems like eyeball providers didn't do IPv6 when they had enough 
IPv4 addresses. And that they are out of address suddenly everybody has
to do IPv6.

Of course, I'm happy that my phone now finally has an IPv6 address.

> Major eyeball providers could, actually start demanding higher
> settlements for IPv4 peering than v6 and use that to start pushing
> some of the V4 costs back onto the content providers.

I think for a long time, the internet community at large has argued against
eyeball providers demanding money from content providers.

However, in the cases where an eyeball provider is already collecting
money from content providers, what is stopping them from offloading the
cost of the CGNAT and IPv4 addresses to the content providers? That seems like
an easy way out.

The classical argument again this is that the customers of the eyeball ISP
should pay for access to IPv4. They are the ones that want the content.