nanog mailing list archives
Re: One Can't Have It Both Ways Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: EzIP Re: IPv4 address block
From: Brian Knight via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2024 10:18:23 -0600
On 2024-01-13 04:03, Brett O'Hara wrote:
They have no interest in trying new things or making new technology work without a solid financial reason and there is none for them implementing ipv6.
When I left $DAYJOB-1 almost 2 years ago, they had just finished increasing fees on IPv4 blocks (larger than /29) that had already been assigned to customers.
This wasn't on new assignments only. It was applied to all Internet customers with /28 and larger assignments that were already assigned and working at the time of the increase.
I know $DAYJOB-1 weren't alone in the NSP industry.Also, one very large cloud provider I use for personal projects is charging additional fees for IPv4 starting this year. My cost for (3) IPv4 addresses went from zero to $10.80/mo/ip, jacking up my bill about 20%. These were IPs assigned to my services 6-7 years ago.
There is a financial reason looming. I grant you that, at the moment, it may still be low enough to be considered "cost of doing business" for nearly all enterprises. But it's exerting force like a glacier does; slowly, irregularly, yet inexorably; so it can be difficult to see.
-Brian
Current thread:
- Re: One Can't Have It Both Ways Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: EzIP Re: IPv4 address block, (continued)
- Re: One Can't Have It Both Ways Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: EzIP Re: IPv4 address block Forrest Christian (List Account) (Jan 13)
- Re: One Can't Have It Both Ways Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: EzIP Re: IPv4 address block Abraham Y. Chen (Jan 15)
- Re: One Can't Have It Both Ways Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: EzIP Re: IPv4 address block Christopher Hawker (Jan 15)
- Re: One Can't Have It Both Ways Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: EzIP Re: IPv4 address block Forrest Christian (List Account) (Jan 15)
- Re: One Can't Have It Both Ways Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: EzIP Re: IPv4 address block Abraham Y. Chen (Jan 18)
- Re: One Can't Have It Both Ways Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: EzIP Re: IPv4 address block Owen DeLong via NANOG (Jan 19)
- Re: One Can't Have It Both Ways Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: EzIP Re: IPv4 address block Abraham Y. Chen (Jan 20)
- Re: One Can't Have It Both Ways Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: EzIP Re: IPv4 address block Owen DeLong via NANOG (Jan 20)
- Re: One Can't Have It Both Ways Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: EzIP Re: IPv4 address block Abraham Y. Chen via NANOG (Jan 24)
- RE: One Can't Have It Both Ways Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: EzIP Re: IPv4 address block Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG (Jan 14)
- Re: One Can't Have It Both Ways Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: EzIP Re: IPv4 address block Brian Knight via NANOG (Jan 15)
- Re: One Can't Have It Both Ways Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: EzIP Re: IPv4 address block Abraham Y. Chen (Jan 15)
- Re: One Can't Have It Both Ways Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: EzIP Re: IPv4 address block sronan (Jan 15)
- Re: One Can't Have It Both Ways Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: EzIP Re: IPv4 address block Abraham Y. Chen (Jan 15)
- Re: One Can't Have It Both Ways Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: EzIP Re: IPv4 address block sronan (Jan 15)
- Re: One Can't Have It Both Ways Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: EzIP Re: IPv4 address block Christopher Hawker (Jan 15)
- Re: One Can't Have It Both Ways Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: EzIP Re: IPv4 address block Brandon Jackson (Jan 15)
- Re: One Can't Have It Both Ways Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: EzIP Re: IPv4 address block Christopher Hawker (Jan 15)
- Re: One Can't Have It Both Ways Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: EzIP Re: IPv4 address block Forrest Christian (List Account) (Jan 15)
- Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Tom Beecher (Jan 10)