[e2e] the evolution of deployability
richardj at arin.net
Wed Dec 18 09:28:52 PST 2002
In regard to mention of ARIN in this discussion,
I offer two points of clarification:
1. ARIN does not have policies in place that require
organizations to use NAT when providing services to
customers. ARIN staff are under strict instruction
to not even suggest the use of NAT to organizations
who request IP address space from ARIN.
2. ARIN does not have policies in place that relate to
charging schemes for service providers. ARIN does not
in any way make recommendations to service providers
regarding how they charge customers for service, or the
use of IP address space.
Please let me know if I may provide any further
information on this subject.
Director of Operations
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>On Tuesday, Dec 17, 2002, at 13:35 America/Montreal, Henning
>> I also suspect that the major vendors of NAT boxes are neither C nor
>> M, but rather Linksys, DLink, Netgear and similar consumer-oriented
>> vendors. The primary motivation for NATs is not selling boxes, but
>> exorbitant cost of IPv4 addresses. Even for a business DSL, last time
>> I looked, a single IPv4 address costs $5/month. My suspicion is that
>> ISPs use the IPv4 scarcity to reduce bandwidth usage by making
>> deploying web servers, Shoutcast and P2P servers difficult. They have
>> an active interest in not making IPv6 happen, much more than M or C,
>> which would presumably be more than happy if customers had to upgrade
>> operating systems or routers. (Conspiracy-minded folks could imagine
>> nothing better for M than if the Internet were to convert to IPv6 on
>> January 1 and only Windows XP supported IPv6.)
>Charging per-month for additional (i.e. 1 free, but the rest have a
>recurring charge)for residential US cable modem service was basically
>insisted upon by ARIN. Many cable network ISPs make no profit on
>that option, having it only to keep the address block regulators
>happy. An unhappy address block regulator could keep an ISP from
>adding subscribers, so it is a pretty effective tool.
>ISP disinterest in IPv6 most is due to (1) increased operational
>costs of supporting 2 network-layer protocols instead of 1 network-
>layer protocol, (2) lack of end-user customer demand, and (3) lack
>of any ISP operational benefit to deploying the new protocol.
>(3) could be fixed if IPv6 had a more scalable routing architecture;
>right now, IPv6 has the same routing architecture as IPv4, so no
>particular ISP benefit to IPv6 deployment.
>rja at extremenetworks.com
More information about the end2end-interest