nanog mailing list archives
Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:01:03 -0700
On Jul 29, 2010, at 10:32 AM, Tim Franklin wrote:
Why waste valuable people's time to conserve nearly valueless renewable resources?See my earlier comments on "upsell" and "control". While you have some ISPs starting from the mentality that gives us "accepting incoming connections is a chargeable extra", they're also going to be convinced that there's a revenue opportunity in segmenting customers who want N of some resource from those who want 2N, 4N, ... That the resource in question is, for all practical purposes, both free and infinite (cue someone with a 'tragedy of the commons' analysis) does not factor - if they want more, they must pay more!
If you want to build a business based on upsell and control by trying to convince users that they should give you extra money to provision a resource that costs you virtually nothing, then more power to you. However, I think this will, in the end, be as popular as american restaurants that charge for ice water. Consumers are moderately ignorant, but, not completely stupid. Address scarcity has allowed this model to succeed to some extent in IPv4, largely due to lack of alternatives and the fact that all consumer ISPs operate on this model. In IPv6, there is no scarcity, some ISPs will offer alternatives, and, consumers will rapidly learn about this disparity and I'm guessing that a model that says: Network Numbers Our Cost You Pay 1 $0.000000001 $0.00 2 $0.000000002 $1.00 4 $0.000000004 $2.00 etc. Is probably going to be at a significant competitive disadvantage vs. a model that says "You can have whatever address space you can justify. We'll start you with 65,536 networks which we believe is way more than enough for virtually any residential user. We don't charge you anything for address space. We think charging people for integers is illogical." However, if you think there is a competitive or revenue advantage, more power to you. Owen
Current thread:
- Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course, (continued)
- Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course Tore Anderson (Jul 30)
- Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course Owen DeLong (Jul 30)
- Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course Matthew Walster (Jul 30)
- Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 30)
- Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course Owen DeLong (Jul 30)
- Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course JC Dill (Jul 30)
- Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course Owen DeLong (Jul 29)
- Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course Tim Franklin (Jul 29)
- Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course Jeroen Massar (Jul 29)
- Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course Tim Franklin (Jul 29)
- Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course Owen DeLong (Jul 29)
- Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course Tim Franklin (Jul 29)
- Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course Stephen Sprunk (Jul 29)
- Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course Owen DeLong (Jul 29)
- Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course Mark Smith (Jul 22)
- Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course Joe Maimon (Jul 22)
- Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course Owen DeLong (Jul 22)
- Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course Joe Maimon (Jul 23)
- Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course Mark Smith (Jul 23)
- Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course Marco Hogewoning (Jul 23)
- Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course JORDI PALET MARTINEZ (Jul 23)