Re: IPv4 address exchange

[Rubens Kuhl <rubensk () gmail com>]

> > perhaps, if you are seeking support for commercial activity, you should
> > make your employment more clear and declare any conflicts of interest.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> I am employed by Cisco Systems, but all of my statements are my own and I do not represent my employer.  I believe 
> that my employer may benefit from any policy that makes IP addresses more available to more of our customers - we can 
> perhaps sell more routers if more people have addresses - but nobody from Cisco has encouraged me to work in this 
> topic.  Otherwise, I have no commercial interest in the outcome of the policy proposals that I've made.  The 
> proposals that I've put forward are an honest attempt to motivate conversation.

On the contrary, I believe router vendors including but not limited to
Cisco benefits more from IPv4 address exhaustion, as it's an
opportunity to sell new gear that can do hardware forwarding of IPv6
packets, or sell software upgrades to CPU-based platforms (either due
to lack of IPv6 altogether or lack of support of newer IPv6 features).

That doesn't mean that router vendors are promoting address exhaustion
chaos to get new business. That would be a nice conspiracy theory,
though...



Rubens