nanog mailing list archives
Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)
From: Tom Hill <tom () ninjabadger net>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2022 17:01:40 +0000
On 09/03/2022 00:25, Tom Beecher wrote:
The only way IPv6 will ever be ubiquitous is if there comes a time where there is some forcing event that requires it to be.
In about two years time, IPv4 addresses will be worth on the order of $100/IP, assuming current trends hold.
That's a lot of revenue in leasing IPv4 to the business customers that refuse to think about IPv6 because $reason.
It's also a lot of unit cost to add to a consumer-grade service, where your margins are distastefully thin already (well, in some markets) and set to get thinner when you need to buy a swathe of CGNAT boxes to keep routing IPv4.
Even at todays's dollar price, this dilemma holds true, but I largely suspect that there are too few fixed-line ISPs that have been forced into CGNAT yet - the more that are, the more will wonder why they're buying so many of them.
-- Tom
Current thread:
- Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock), (continued)
- Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) John Kristoff (Mar 08)
- Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) Masataka Ohta (Mar 08)
- Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) Tom Beecher (Mar 08)
- Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) Nathan Angelacos (Mar 08)
- Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) John R. Levine (Mar 08)
- Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) Seth David Schoen (Mar 08)
- Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) Owen DeLong via NANOG (Mar 08)
- Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) Joe Maimon (Mar 10)
- Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) Mark Andrews (Mar 08)
- Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) Dave Taht (Mar 08)
- Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) Tom Hill (Mar 09)
- Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) Joe Maimon (Mar 10)
- Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) bzs (Mar 08)
- Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) Greg Skinner via NANOG (Mar 12)
- Re: V6 still not supported John Gilmore (Mar 16)
- Re: V6 still not supported Owen DeLong via NANOG (Mar 16)
- Re: V6 still not supported james.cutler () consultant com (Mar 16)
- Re: V6 still not supported David Bass (Mar 16)
- Re: V6 still not supported Owen DeLong via NANOG (Mar 16)
- Re: V6 still not supported John Gilmore (Mar 16)
- Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) Tom Beecher (Mar 16)