[AusNOG] Less than 10% of IPv4 Addresses Remain Unallocated

[Tom Lanyon]

On 23/01/2010, at 11:41 AM, Noel Butler wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 09:59 +1030, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote: 
>> 
>> Rather than being silly and using phrases like "talking about ripping off end users more money because they use ipv4" how about we return to some level of constructive conversation about ensuring we have the right IPv6 lifeboats are going to built?
> 
>  Well, sorry if that offended anyone here, but it IS ludicrous to even suggest such an action against end users simply because they have NFI what ipv4 or 6 is, and any proposed extortion, is exactly that, and any company who introduces such will be the loser, not the end user, (wow never though I'd be sticking up for users :P)

It's still just another cost to the ISP. If transit prices increased for an ISP then they would (most likely) pass that cost on to the end-user; in that case, the end-user would probably have the option to move to a plan which uses less of that resource (ie. lower download quota).

If the cost to provide an IPv4 address goes up, surely that should be passed on the same, and the alternate option for the end-user is to move to a plan which doesn't incur that resource cost (ie. one using IPv6 instead).

Tom