[ih] Not a Milestone in IPv4->IPv6 migration..?

[Brian E Carpenter]

It's worth noting that there are people with a vested interest in high prices for IPv4 addresses, and therefore a vested interest in *slowing* the adoption of IPv6.

There are also literally thousands of netops people in small or medium businesses and small IPSs for whom the move to supporting IPv6 is seen as an unnecessary expense. Until there is real practical cost in *not* supporting IPv6, this won't change.

It's a bit annoying that IPv4 allows ~4 billion addresses. That is enough to allow a stable state in which about half the world has upgraded to bigger addresses. If the limit had been much lower, say ~500 million addresses, we'd be close to 100% IPv6 deployment by now.

Regards
    Brian Carpenter

On 20-Jan-24 07:53, John Levine via Internet-history wrote:
> It appears that Jack Haverty via Internet-history <jack at 3kitty.org> said:
>> -=-=-=-=-=-
>> Seems like a historical milestone, assuming this is the first time for a
>> monthly charge for IP addresses.
> 
> AWS has been charging for IPv4 addresses for years. The change is that
> the price has gone up. They used only to charge separately for
> addresses that were not attached to running virtual machines,
> presumably on the theory that you're paying for the VM and the charge
> is part of that. Now they charge all the time.
> 
> The charge is pretty small, half a cent per hour, or about $3.50/month.
> 
> Lots of virtual hosts have a pricing model where you get one IPv4 address
> and pay for any extra.  Digital Ocean charges $5/mo, again waiving the fee
> when it's attached to a running machine.
> 
> AWS is pretty good about giving you your own /64 for IPv6 adresses,
> but other places just put all their customers in the same /64 unless
> you complain (and sometimes even if you do complain) which can lead to
> reputation issues.
> 
> R's,
> John