<div dir="ltr">This allocation appears to be for Google cloud which would make sense. <div><br></div><div><pre style="padding:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;white-space:pre-wrap;color:rgb(0,0,0)">NetRange: 35.192.0.0 - 35.207.255.255
CIDR: <a href="http://35.192.0.0/12">35.192.0.0/12</a>
NetName: GOOGL-2
NetHandle: NET-35-192-0-0-1
Parent: NET35 (NET-35-0-0-0-0)
NetType: Direct Allocation
OriginAS:
Organization: Google Inc. (GOOGL-2)
RegDate: 2017-03-21
Updated: 2017-03-21
Ref: <a href="https://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-35-192-0-0-1">https://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-35-192-0-0-1</a>
OrgName: Google Inc.
OrgId: GOOGL-2
Address: 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
City: Mountain View
StateProv: CA
PostalCode: 94043
Country: US
RegDate: 2006-09-29
Updated: 2017-01-28
Comment: *** The IP addresses under this Org-ID are in use by Google Cloud customers ***
Comment:
Comment: Direct all copyright and legal complaints to
Comment: <a href="https://support.google.com/legal/go/report">https://support.google.com/legal/go/report</a>
Comment:
Comment: Direct all spam and abuse complaints to
Comment: <a href="https://support.google.com/code/go/gce_abuse_report">https://support.google.com/code/go/gce_abuse_report</a>
Comment:
Comment: For fastest response, use the relevant forms above.
Comment:
Comment: Complaints can also be sent to the GC Abuse desk
Comment: (<a href="mailto:google-cloud-compliance@google.com">google-cloud-compliance@google.com</a>)
Comment: but may have longer turnaround times.
Comment:
Comment: Complaints sent to any other POC will be ignored.
Ref: <a href="https://whois.arin.net/rest/org/GOOGL-2">https://whois.arin.net/rest/org/GOOGL-2</a>
</pre><div class="gmail_extra"> <br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On 1 May 2017 at 09:12, Mark Smith <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:markzzzsmith@gmail.com" target="_blank">markzzzsmith@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Came across this tweet this morning, which is suggesting that Google<br>
just purchased a /12 from Merit Network.<br>
<br>
<a href="https://twitter.com/atoonk/status/858473247368593408" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://twitter.com/atoonk/<wbr>status/858473247368593408</a><br>
<br>
<br>
The cost per IPv4 address has been in the order of $10 each, so that<br>
is a purchase in the order of $10M. That's a small amount of money for<br>
Google, however in real terms, it is a high opportunity cost - $10M<br>
will buy a lot of other things (staff, servers etc.).<br>
<br>
What has happened is that ISPs that haven't deployed IPv6 have managed<br>
to externalise the cost of not doing so to Google. Most if not all of<br>
Google's services are reachable over IPv6, so they're not really doing<br>
this because they themselves have no alternative way to provide access<br>
to their services. Google are now receiving ~15% of their traffic over<br>
IPv6:<br>
<br>
<a href="https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.google.com/intl/<wbr>en/ipv6/statistics.html</a><br>
<br>
<br>
Others who want to continue to grow and continue to provide their<br>
services to IPv4 only clients will also have no choice but to buy more<br>
IPv4 addresses. Other larger players will be able to afford to do so,<br>
smaller players may not be able to.<br>
<br>
At some point in the future I think there will be push back from<br>
organisations who are being forced to or can't afford to buy IPv4<br>
addresses because ISPs haven't deployed IPv6. They'll want to somehow<br>
shift some or ideally all of the costs or consequences back onto the<br>
organisations who are forcing them to buy more IPv4 addresses.<br>
<br>
I think they're unlikely to try the service charge approach, although<br>
from the side line, that might be both interesting and entertaining to<br>
see if it works. I'd like to be there when an ISP receives the first<br>
"IPv4 service charge" bill from an Internet service giant to see the<br>
look on their face. Alternatively, per-customer service charge could<br>
be used when the customer is paying for the service - e.g., it could<br>
be a line item on the Netflix bill.<br>
<br>
I think the only other lever these IPv4 purchasers have is to degrade<br>
the IPv4 service - either artificially, or by choosing to avoid<br>
capacity/resource investment in it, as it is a legacy service. ISP<br>
customers call their ISP's helpdesk when ever anything goes wrong, and<br>
that is where the cost of not deploying IPv6 will be incurred.<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
AusNOG mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>