Mailing List Archive: NANOG: users

IPv6 End User Fee

1 2

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

otis at ocosa

Aug 3, 2012, 12:22 PM

Post #1 of 28 (439 views)
Permalink

IPv6 End User Fee

Anyone charging end users for IPv6 space yet? :p

Just wondering, with so many IPv6 resources in a single allocation it
would seem difficult to charge anything at all.

1. How are you making up loss of revenue on IPv4 assignments?
2. Are you charging anything?
3. Is the cost built into the service?
4. Do you assign IPv6 space to end user and charge admin fee?

Take care,

Otis

trejrco at gmail

Aug 3, 2012, 12:37 PM

Post #2 of 28 (429 views)
Permalink

Re: IPv6 End User Fee [In reply to]

FWIW - Comcast isn't charging for native connectivity to residential users.

/TJ

On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Seth Mattinen <sethm [at] rollernet> wrote:

> On 8/3/12 12:22 PM, Otis L. Surratt, Jr. wrote:
> > Anyone charging end users for IPv6 space yet? :p
> >
>
> Nope, and no plans to.
>
> ~Seth
>
>

sethm at rollernet

Aug 3, 2012, 12:38 PM

Post #3 of 28 (433 views)
Permalink

Re: IPv6 End User Fee [In reply to]

On 8/3/12 12:22 PM, Otis L. Surratt, Jr. wrote:
> Anyone charging end users for IPv6 space yet? :p
>

Nope, and no plans to.

~Seth

james.cutler at consultant

Aug 3, 2012, 1:48 PM

Post #4 of 28 (430 views)
Permalink

Re: IPv6 End User Fee [In reply to]

On Aug 3, 2012, at 3:22 PM, "Otis L. Surratt, Jr." <otis [at] ocosa> 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 [at] consultant

cb.list6 at gmail

Aug 3, 2012, 3:12 PM

Post #5 of 28 (425 views)
Permalink

Re: IPv6 End User Fee [In reply to]

On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Otis L. Surratt, Jr. <otis [at] ocosa> wrote:
> Anyone charging end users for IPv6 space yet? :p
>
> Just wondering, with so many IPv6 resources in a single allocation it
> would seem difficult to charge anything at all.
>
> 1. How are you making up loss of revenue on IPv4 assignments?
> 2. Are you charging anything?
> 3. Is the cost built into the service?
> 4. Do you assign IPv6 space to end user and charge admin fee?
>
> Take care,
>
> Otis
>

IPv6 users cost me less money (CGN resources), i wish i had a business
method for giving them discounts and meaningful incentives for using
IPv6.

Today, my retail mobile phones users can have 1 NAT'd IPv4 address or
2^64 public IPv6 addresses + NAT64 to reach IPv4 destinations. Most
don't use the IPv6 address option yet :(

But the number of folks electing to use IPv6 is increasing with more
phones available (4 Androids now support HSPA+ IPv6) and more IPv6
awareness

CB

derek at derekivey

Aug 3, 2012, 3:37 PM

Post #6 of 28 (426 views)
Permalink

Re: IPv6 End User Fee [In reply to]

If my ISP charged me fees for IPv6 space, I'd ditch them. They already
make enough money as is from modem/cable box rentals.

Derek

On 8/3/2012 6:12 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Otis L. Surratt, Jr. <otis [at] ocosa> wrote:
>> Anyone charging end users for IPv6 space yet? :p
>>
>> Just wondering, with so many IPv6 resources in a single allocation it
>> would seem difficult to charge anything at all.
>>
>> 1. How are you making up loss of revenue on IPv4 assignments?
>> 2. Are you charging anything?
>> 3. Is the cost built into the service?
>> 4. Do you assign IPv6 space to end user and charge admin fee?
>>
>> Take care,
>>
>> Otis
>>
> IPv6 users cost me less money (CGN resources), i wish i had a business
> method for giving them discounts and meaningful incentives for using
> IPv6.
>
> Today, my retail mobile phones users can have 1 NAT'd IPv4 address or
> 2^64 public IPv6 addresses + NAT64 to reach IPv4 destinations. Most
> don't use the IPv6 address option yet :(
>
> But the number of folks electing to use IPv6 is increasing with more
> phones available (4 Androids now support HSPA+ IPv6) and more IPv6
> awareness
>
> CB
>

nenolod at systeminplace

Aug 3, 2012, 3:42 PM

Post #7 of 28 (430 views)
Permalink

Re: IPv6 End User Fee [In reply to]

Hi,

On Aug 3, 2012, at 2:22 PM, "Otis L. Surratt, Jr." <otis [at] ocosa> wrote:

> Anyone charging end users for IPv6 space yet? :p
>
> Just wondering, with so many IPv6 resources in a single allocation it
> would seem difficult to charge anything at all.
>
> 1. How are you making up loss of revenue on IPv4 assignments?

If revenue from IPv4 assignments is an issue, then the solution is to adjust your business model to not depend on that revenue. As an ISP, the business is to ship bits around.

> 2. Are you charging anything?

Haven't ever charged for IPv6 allocations...

> 3. Is the cost built into the service?

The cost of IPv6 is so negligible (well unless you need advanced software licenses -- hi brocade), that I don't see any point in even accounting the cost of providing IPv6 into a service fee.

> 4. Do you assign IPv6 space to end user and charge admin fee?

By assign, do you mean SWIP? Some places charge an admin fee to do a SWIP, but for setting up an allocation, I have never heard of an admin fee.

William

george.herbert at gmail

Aug 3, 2012, 3:43 PM

Post #8 of 28 (423 views)
Permalink

Re: IPv6 End User Fee [In reply to]

If anyone's ISPs are overcharging them, I will be able to provide
service for no more than 1 cent per available routable IPv6 address in
any netblock from /64 on up. We have a reasonable startup rate of a
/56 for the price of a /64 for the remainder of 2012, even!

-george

On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Derek Ivey <derek [at] derekivey> wrote:
> If my ISP charged me fees for IPv6 space, I'd ditch them. They already make
> enough money as is from modem/cable box rentals.
>
> Derek
>
>
> On 8/3/2012 6:12 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Otis L. Surratt, Jr. <otis [at] ocosa>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Anyone charging end users for IPv6 space yet? :p
>>>
>>> Just wondering, with so many IPv6 resources in a single allocation it
>>> would seem difficult to charge anything at all.
>>>
>>> 1. How are you making up loss of revenue on IPv4 assignments?
>>> 2. Are you charging anything?
>>> 3. Is the cost built into the service?
>>> 4. Do you assign IPv6 space to end user and charge admin fee?
>>>
>>> Take care,
>>>
>>> Otis
>>>
>> IPv6 users cost me less money (CGN resources), i wish i had a business
>> method for giving them discounts and meaningful incentives for using
>> IPv6.
>>
>> Today, my retail mobile phones users can have 1 NAT'd IPv4 address or
>> 2^64 public IPv6 addresses + NAT64 to reach IPv4 destinations. Most
>> don't use the IPv6 address option yet :(
>>
>> But the number of folks electing to use IPv6 is increasing with more
>> phones available (4 Androids now support HSPA+ IPv6) and more IPv6
>> awareness
>>
>> CB
>>
>
>

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert [at] gmail

sethm at rollernet

Aug 3, 2012, 3:44 PM

Post #9 of 28 (426 views)
Permalink

Re: IPv6 End User Fee [In reply to]

On 8/3/12 3:42 PM, William Pitcock wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Aug 3, 2012, at 2:22 PM, "Otis L. Surratt, Jr." <otis [at] ocosa> wrote:
>
>> Anyone charging end users for IPv6 space yet? :p
>>
>> Just wondering, with so many IPv6 resources in a single allocation it
>> would seem difficult to charge anything at all.
>>
>> 1. How are you making up loss of revenue on IPv4 assignments?
>
> If revenue from IPv4 assignments is an issue, then the solution is to adjust your business model to not depend on that revenue. As an ISP, the business is to ship bits around.
>

To that end I've never charged for IPv4, either.

~Seth

otis at ocosa

Aug 3, 2012, 4:32 PM

Post #10 of 28 (427 views)
Permalink

RE: IPv6 End User Fee [In reply to]

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 [at] consultant]
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 [at] ocosa> 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 [at] consultant

nenolod at systeminplace

Aug 3, 2012, 6:00 PM

Post #11 of 28 (415 views)
Permalink

Re: IPv6 End User Fee [In reply to]

Hi!

On Aug 3, 2012, at 6:32 PM, "Otis L. Surratt, Jr." <otis [at] ocosa> 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.
>

A possible revenue-recovery model would be to charge say $2 per IP for services below a certain resource threshold, for example 1gb vps or larger get free IPs and dedicated servers get free IPs. This helps to increase margin as some people will upgrade to more expensive plans to get the free IPv4s. In hosting you can just issue /128s on ipv6 and require upgrades to get larger allocations.

William

> Otis
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Cutler James R [mailto:james.cutler [at] consultant]
> 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 [at] ocosa> 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 [at] consultant
>
>
>

Sent from my Sprint iPhone

mysidia at gmail

Aug 3, 2012, 7:08 PM

Post #12 of 28 (413 views)
Permalink

Re: IPv6 End User Fee [In reply to]

On 8/3/12, Otis L. Surratt, Jr. <otis [at] ocosa> wrote:
> Anyone charging end users for IPv6 space yet? :p
>
ISPs already charge for bandwidth link capacity. Why charge a fee to
discourage subscribers from adopting a protocol that will let the ISP
sell larger capacity links?

IPv6 packet headers are 40 bytes length, Versus IPv4 headers which
were ~20 bytes.

--
-JH

jordi.palet at consulintel

Aug 3, 2012, 7:49 PM

Post #13 of 28 (415 views)
Permalink

Re: IPv6 End User Fee [In reply to]

Add value. You must not charge for the addresses at all, they are not
yours, you can't sell them.

In every "smart" business, the future is not anymore selling "goods" but
added value.

If you have a quasi-unlimited number of addresses in every customer, you
can star building up new value added services and applications, either
in-house or with the cooperation of third-party developers, such as in the
case of the app-store and likes.

You will ger a small revenue for every new service or app, but times many
customers/month, and this will increase the demand of bw, so you will be
able to sell bigger pipes.

Regards,
Jordi

-----Mensaje original-----
De: "Otis L. Surratt, Jr." <otis [at] ocosa>
Responder a: <otis [at] ocosa>
Fecha: viernes 3 de agosto de 2012 12:22
Para: <nanog [at] nanog>
Asunto: IPv6 End User Fee

>Anyone charging end users for IPv6 space yet? :p
>
>Just wondering, with so many IPv6 resources in a single allocation it
>would seem difficult to charge anything at all.
>
>1. How are you making up loss of revenue on IPv4 assignments?
>2. Are you charging anything?
>3. Is the cost built into the service?
>4. Do you assign IPv6 space to end user and charge admin fee?
>
>Take care,
>
>Otis
>

**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

james.cutler at consultant

Aug 3, 2012, 8:04 PM

Post #14 of 28 (413 views)
Permalink

Re: IPv6 End User Fee [In reply to]

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 [at] ocosa> 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 [at] consultant]
> 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 [at] ocosa> 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 [at] consultant
>
>

randy at psg

Aug 3, 2012, 8:22 PM

Post #15 of 28 (406 views)
Permalink

Re: IPv6 End User Fee [In reply to]

> You must not charge for the addresses at all, they are not
> yours, you can't sell them.

do i pay for them?

owen at delong

Aug 3, 2012, 8:31 PM

Post #16 of 28 (408 views)
Permalink

Re: IPv6 End User Fee [In reply to]

On Aug 3, 2012, at 20:22 , Randy Bush <randy [at] psg> wrote:

>> You must not charge for the addresses at all, they are not
>> yours, you can't sell them.
>
> do i pay for them?

NO, you don't. You _MIGHT_ pay for registration services where you are paying for the service of having them uniquely registered in the RIR system.

You MIGHT have paid some other organization for the privilege of transferring part or all of their registration rights to you.

But in no case did you pay for the addresses themselves unless you are silly enough to think that a person can own an integer.

Owen

otis at ocosa

Aug 3, 2012, 9:05 PM

Post #17 of 28 (405 views)
Permalink

RE: IPv6 End User Fee [In reply to]

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)

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.

-----Original Message-----
From: Cutler James R [mailto:james.cutler [at] consultant]
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 [at] ocosa> 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 [at] consultant]
> 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 [at] ocosa> 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 [at] consultant
>
>

owen at delong

Aug 3, 2012, 11:17 PM

Post #18 of 28 (398 views)
Permalink

Re: IPv6 End User Fee [In reply to]

On Aug 3, 2012, at 21:05 , "Otis L. Surratt, Jr." <otis [at] ocosa> 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 [at] consultant]
> 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 [at] ocosa> 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 [at] consultant]
>> 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 [at] ocosa> 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 [at] consultant
>>
>>
>
>

eugen at leitl

Aug 4, 2012, 3:01 AM

Post #19 of 28 (391 views)
Permalink

Re: IPv6 End User Fee [In reply to]

On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 08:31:06PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:

> You MIGHT have paid some other organization for the privilege of transferring part or all of their registration rights to you.
>
> But in no case did you pay for the addresses themselves unless you are silly enough to think that a person can own an integer.

IPv6 missed a great chance of doing away with all the
central waterfall trickle-down space distribution.

Luckily, /64 looks like large enough to bypass that
by offering address space sufficiently large while
co-existable with legacy addressing and routing.

I hope eventually somebody will start
tinkering with mesh radios which also have GPS
onboard (as most smartphones and tablets do).
24 + 24 + 16 bits are just enough to represent
a decent-resolution WGS84 position fix. Plus,
GPS gives you a pretty accurate clock.

mysidia at gmail

Aug 4, 2012, 8:59 AM

Post #20 of 28 (393 views)
Permalink

Re: IPv6 End User Fee [In reply to]

On 8/4/12, Eugen Leitl <eugen [at] leitl> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 08:31:06PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> onboard (as most smartphones and tablets do).
> 24 + 24 + 16 bits are just enough to represent
> a decent-resolution WGS84 position fix. Plus,
> GPS gives you a pretty accurate clock.

Yes, very interesting. I wonder how do you achieve full scale
software testing for a mesh networking platform efficiently?

Do any of the virtual machine monitors Xen, KVM, etc
support an emulated 802.11n/other radio device that allows you to
configure "Emulated location and geography" for each virtual node,
to test various protocols and implementations across p2p wireless
meshes by simulating realistic connectivity performance?

--
-JH

eugen at leitl

Aug 4, 2012, 9:35 AM

Post #21 of 28 (392 views)
Permalink

Re: IPv6 End User Fee [In reply to]

On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 10:59:09AM -0500, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On 8/4/12, Eugen Leitl <eugen [at] leitl> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 08:31:06PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > onboard (as most smartphones and tablets do).
> > 24 + 24 + 16 bits are just enough to represent
> > a decent-resolution WGS84 position fix. Plus,
> > GPS gives you a pretty accurate clock.
>
> Yes, very interesting. I wonder how do you achieve full scale
> software testing for a mesh networking platform efficiently?

The Serval people do physical testing in the lab and
the field. Of course, their scale is very small. You'd want
to push most traffic through regular IPv6 Internet and
only everything else through the mesh which doesn't
have direct line of sight or fiber connectivity.

This can be impemented as an abstract layer presenting
a unified view, which uses VPN tunnels (each router node
would not need to maintain many, even modest connectivites
would result in very few hops) over IPv6 Internet
just as Tor or I2P do it today. The penalty would be not
that bad, given that you're not doing any deliberate
traffic remixing/onion routing.

You can prototype something like that quite easily based
on CyanogenMod with IPv6, OpenVPN or tinc, gpsd, Serval,
(maybe cjdns https://raw.github.com/cjdelisle/cjdns/master/rfcs/Whitepaper.md
as well?) and some glue to tie it all together.

> Do any of the virtual machine monitors Xen, KVM, etc
> support an emulated 802.11n/other radio device that allows you to
> configure "Emulated location and geography" for each virtual node,
> to test various protocols and implementations across p2p wireless
> meshes by simulating realistic connectivity performance?

Very good point. I'm not aware of simulators which can do
that on a very large scale (millions, billions to trillions
of nodes).

owen at delong

Aug 4, 2012, 10:31 AM

Post #22 of 28 (386 views)
Permalink

Re: IPv6 End User Fee [In reply to]

On Aug 4, 2012, at 03:01 , Eugen Leitl <eugen [at] leitl> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 08:31:06PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> You MIGHT have paid some other organization for the privilege of transferring part or all of their registration rights to you.
>>
>> But in no case did you pay for the addresses themselves unless you are silly enough to think that a person can own an integer.
>
> IPv6 missed a great chance of doing away with all the
> central waterfall trickle-down space distribution.
>

There was no need to fix what wasn't broken.

> Luckily, /64 looks like large enough to bypass that
> by offering address space sufficiently large while
> co-existable with legacy addressing and routing.

Why on earth would you be messing around within /64? It should be easy enough to get a /48 (it certainly is now).

> I hope eventually somebody will start
> tinkering with mesh radios which also have GPS
> onboard (as most smartphones and tablets do).
> 24 + 24 + 16 bits are just enough to represent
> a decent-resolution WGS84 position fix. Plus,
> GPS gives you a pretty accurate clock.

That could be an interesting project. Limiting it to a /64 still doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Owen

eugen at leitl

Aug 4, 2012, 12:41 PM

Post #23 of 28 (385 views)
Permalink

Re: IPv6 End User Fee [In reply to]

On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 10:31:02AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:

> > IPv6 missed a great chance of doing away with all the
> > central waterfall trickle-down space distribution.
> >
>
> There was no need to fix what wasn't broken.

Let's say I want to plunk down a zero-administration
node somewhere, as an end user. The most natural
approach is where addresses are derived from constraints,
and address collisions are identical to physical space
collisions. No two nodes can occupy the same space.
By the time you're beyond these 2^24 lat/long resolution
IPv6 is probably on its last legs anyway, and there's
way to do renumbering with more bits, at the very least.

> > Luckily, /64 looks like large enough to bypass that
> > by offering address space sufficiently large while
> > co-existable with legacy addressing and routing.
>
> Why on earth would you be messing around within /64? It should be easy enough to get a /48 (it certainly is now).

It's a lowest common denominator, at least as long the
ISPs are playing by the rules. If end users conspire to use
a new addressing scheme bypassing the ISP infrastructure
as the crow flies, a freely modyfiable address field
within your ISP-assigned address space is the best label
you can hope for.

> > I hope eventually somebody will start
> > tinkering with mesh radios which also have GPS
> > onboard (as most smartphones and tablets do).
> > 24 + 24 + 16 bits are just enough to represent
> > a decent-resolution WGS84 position fix. Plus,
> > GPS gives you a pretty accurate clock.
>
> That could be an interesting project. Limiting it to a /64 still doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I'm actually glad it's a /64. MAC space is a lot more cramped,
and that information doesn't travel at all far.

owen at delong

Aug 4, 2012, 6:53 PM

Post #24 of 28 (388 views)
Permalink

Re: IPv6 End User Fee [In reply to]

On Aug 4, 2012, at 12:41 , Eugen Leitl <eugen [at] leitl> wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 10:31:02AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>>> IPv6 missed a great chance of doing away with all the
>>> central waterfall trickle-down space distribution.
>>>
>>
>> There was no need to fix what wasn't broken.
>
> Let's say I want to plunk down a zero-administration
> node somewhere, as an end user. The most natural
> approach is where addresses are derived from constraints,
> and address collisions are identical to physical space
> collisions. No two nodes can occupy the same space.
> By the time you're beyond these 2^24 lat/long resolution
> IPv6 is probably on its last legs anyway, and there's
> way to do renumbering with more bits, at the very least.
>

This ignores the many many studies of the idea of geo-based
addressing which have proven its unfeasibility as well as the
fact that not everyone wants their address to reflect the exact
coordinates of where the box is located.

Also, any such scheme would depend on defining an arbitrary
"minimum" sized box and ignores the possibility of needing
many addresses for the same physical box containing multiple
virtual nodes.

It sounds great in theory until you actually compare it to the
real world.

IP addresses are not physical addresses and trying to
correlate them only leads to artificial limitations and other
problems.

>>> Luckily, /64 looks like large enough to bypass that
>>> by offering address space sufficiently large while
>>> co-existable with legacy addressing and routing.
>>
>> Why on earth would you be messing around within /64? It should be easy enough to get a /48 (it certainly is now).
>
> It's a lowest common denominator, at least as long the
> ISPs are playing by the rules. If end users conspire to use
> a new addressing scheme bypassing the ISP infrastructure
> as the crow flies, a freely modyfiable address field
> within your ISP-assigned address space is the best label
> you can hope for.
>

Uh, good luck with that.

>>> I hope eventually somebody will start
>>> tinkering with mesh radios which also have GPS
>>> onboard (as most smartphones and tablets do).
>>> 24 + 24 + 16 bits are just enough to represent
>>> a decent-resolution WGS84 position fix. Plus,
>>> GPS gives you a pretty accurate clock.
>>
>> That could be an interesting project. Limiting it to a /64 still doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
>
> I'm actually glad it's a /64. MAC space is a lot more cramped,
> and that information doesn't travel at all far.

You misunderstand... I'm suggesting a /48 (65,536 /64s), not
a /80 (48 bits to mess around with).

Owen

eugen at leitl

Aug 5, 2012, 3:22 AM

Post #25 of 28 (386 views)
Permalink

Re: IPv6 End User Fee [In reply to]

On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 06:53:48PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:

> This ignores the many many studies of the idea of geo-based
> addressing which have proven its unfeasibility as well as the

I disagree that the studies have looked at the problem
space from the right angle.

> fact that not everyone wants their address to reflect the exact
> coordinates of where the box is located.

Routing efficiency and anonymity are mutually exclusive.

Apart from geoip databases triangulation via time of
flight will nail you down in space in any case.

Anonymization should be a function of an extra layer,
just as Tor and I2P etc. are doing it for TCP/IP.

> Also, any such scheme would depend on defining an arbitrary
> "minimum" sized box and ignores the possibility of needing
> many addresses for the same physical box containing multiple
> virtual nodes.

You cannot have two physical switches occupying the
same space. 128 bits is quite enough to physically
address each cubic micron in 1/3rd of Earth volume.

> It sounds great in theory until you actually compare it to the
> real world.
>
> IP addresses are not physical addresses and trying to

/64 is enough to abuse parts of IPv6 to encode physical
coordinates.

> correlate them only leads to artificial limitations and other
> problems.

Interesting. I see the current IPv4/IPv6 model full of
artificial limitations that go away if you remove the
centralistic governance model.

> >>> Luckily, /64 looks like large enough to bypass that
> >>> by offering address space sufficiently large while
> >>> co-existable with legacy addressing and routing.
> >>
> >> Why on earth would you be messing around within /64? It should be easy enough to get a /48 (it certainly is now).
> >
> > It's a lowest common denominator, at least as long the
> > ISPs are playing by the rules. If end users conspire to use
> > a new addressing scheme bypassing the ISP infrastructure
> > as the crow flies, a freely modyfiable address field
> > within your ISP-assigned address space is the best label
> > you can hope for.
> >
>
> Uh, good luck with that.

Do you see problems with this scheme? There's considerable
interest and momentum in end user owned routing infrastructure,
including wireless ad hoc meshes across urban areas.

> >>> I hope eventually somebody will start
> >>> tinkering with mesh radios which also have GPS
> >>> onboard (as most smartphones and tablets do).
> >>> 24 + 24 + 16 bits are just enough to represent
> >>> a decent-resolution WGS84 position fix. Plus,
> >>> GPS gives you a pretty accurate clock.
> >>
> >> That could be an interesting project. Limiting it to a /64 still doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
> >
> > I'm actually glad it's a /64. MAC space is a lot more cramped,
> > and that information doesn't travel at all far.
>
>
> You misunderstand... I'm suggesting a /48 (65,536 /64s), not
> a /80 (48 bits to mess around with).

You can't have the same /48 getting routed to random end
users all over the world. But each of these users can
use the local /64 as scratch space that will be preserved
as it travels across IPv6 Internet.

1 2

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads