Re: IPv6 End User Fee

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Aug 3, 2012, at 21:05 , "Otis L. Surratt, Jr." <otis () ocosa com> wrote:

> I was thinking about End User in a sense of one to simply consume a product or a service offered by a service 
> provider. However, I should have left room for those that are assigned GUA space by a service provider and reassign 
> space to their end users. (i.e. Allocated /48 and reassign /64 or /56)

That shouldn't happen... If you are acting as an LIR, you should be getting at least a /32 and you should be assigning 
at least a /48 to your end users.

> I do agree that the infrastructure and management costs out way the costs of provider independent space. I agree it 
> would be extremely difficult to setup some sort of fee for any prefix size in IPv6.
>
> Then it's fair to say the approach should be simply to chalk the lose in IPv4 revenue and move on. It's not a big 
> concern for us. I was just curious as to the large providers that make extra money off those wanting more IPv4 
> addresses.

Is it really a loss? If you're doing things right, IPv4 is costing you more and more and more money every year. When 
your IPv4 revenue goes away, so should your IPv4 costs.

Owen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cutler James R [mailto:james.cutler () consultant com]
> Sent: Fri 8/3/2012 10:04 PM
> To: Otis L. Surratt, Jr.
> Cc: NANOG list
> Subject: Re: IPv6 End User Fee
>
> I would say that the typical usage, at least here in the US, is that an End User is the one holding an iPhone or 
> sitting at a computer watching the Olympics, and, ultimately, paying that last mile fee.
>
> Even using your definition, the costs of connectivity (routers, wires, management) far exceeds the cost of 
> addressing.  Given the quantity of numbers available for IP addressing, it is does not make economic sense to even 
> construct a billing mechanism for IPv6 addressing beyond those of the LIRs, RIRs, etc. Purchase IPv6 connectivity 
> includes the assumption of IPv6 addressing included.
>
> On Aug 3, 2012, at 7:32 PM, "Otis L. Surratt, Jr." <otis () ocosa com> wrote:
> > By end user I mean hosting clients (cloud, collocation, shared, dedicated, VPS, etc.) of any sort. For example you 
> > have clients that would need....say /24 for their dedicated server. If you charge a $1.00/IP which is typical then 
> > you would lose that revenue if they converted to IPv6. If you didn't charge for IPv4 then you have nothing to to 
> > lose.
> >
> > Otis
> >
> > From: Cutler James R [mailto:james.cutler () consultant com]
> > Sent: Fri 8/3/2012 3:48 PM
> > To: Otis L. Surratt, Jr.
> > Cc: NANOG list
> > Subject: Re: IPv6 End User Fee
> >
> > On Aug 3, 2012, at 3:22 PM, "Otis L. Surratt, Jr." <otis () ocosa com> wrote:
> > > Anyone charging end users for IPv6 space yet? :p
> > >
> > > <snip/>
> > > Otis
> >
> > I can't imagine that this would be anything but counterproductive.  End users are not interested in IPv6 - most 
> > would not recognize IPv6 if it fell out of their screen.  End users want working connectivity, not jargon. 
> >
> > James R. Cutler
> > james.cutler () consultant com