Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability WGLC

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 01/10/2015 20:59, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
> 
>> On Sep 18, 2015, at 11:52 AM, Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> However, it may be imposed as a crude load management system. So
>>> maybe the draft should point out that the number of IP addresses is
>>> not a proxy for the traffic load.

[That was me, not Alexandre]

> Agree that someone might be trying to manage load. But I suspect it's more about revenue generation. Example: I recently took a cruise on Royal Caribbean (which is a five star hotel on a barge), and paid five star hotel prices for Internet access (well, not really; we didn't buy it). The first device was $15/day, the second was half that, and there wasn't a third device price. Not sure what would have happened if my device had wanted to change its IP address daily (is that a MAC address or an IP address?). I think they saw it as a revenue source, and weren't especially thinking about the amount of space segment or ship-to-shore microwave they were using.

Sure, but in either case it's fundamentally due to a belief that an IP address is
a costly resource, and I think we're trying to say "no it isn't,in IPv6."

Which leaves open the question of what *is* a costly resource that it's reasonable
to charge for, of course.

    Brian