On Aug 3, 2012, at 21:05 , "Otis L. Surratt, Jr." <o...@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.cut...@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." <o...@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.cut...@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." <o...@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.cut...@consultant.com >> >> > >
