[AusNOG] IPv4

[Joshua D'Alton]

Annnnd I'm saying if a business can't afford that 600% increase then there
is something wrong with their business model. $12k/yr for 1000 IPs is a
trivial cost. Even at your cheapest server you'd be bringing in a million
in revenue in a year for only 12k increase in IP costs. That's only 1% give
or take.

Hey if you really need more IPs, you could always just go find a bunch of
2nd cousins, setup a company (only costs a couple k), apply to APNIC for
another couple k, then sell them to yourself for a nominal profit. But I'd
be seriously worried if your getting 1000 IPs for around $6k instead of
$12k actually makes much difference to your company.

Myself, I'm charging $5/IP/mo and no one has a problem paying it. I
probably am making less additional IP sales than if it were $1/IP/mo, but
my core business isn't reliant on that so it really doesn't matter either
way.

On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Jared Hirst <
jared.hirst at serversaustralia.com.au> wrote:

> Annnd we just went round in a circle… this was the reason for my original
> post, NEW businesses can now get a small allocation /22 for a small fee and
> then hold on to it to on sell at 600% profit. But existing growing APNIC
> members cannot, they need to buy it on the black market.
>
>
>
> Rather than APNIC managing, scrutinizing and asking WHY said company
> really needs the IP’s they are allocating them to anyone that ‘needs’ them.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net [mailto:
> ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] *On Behalf Of *Joshua D'Alton
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 03, 2013 2:43 PM
>
> *To:* AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> *Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] IPv4
>
>
>
> No shock at all, but if they aren't a cheap hosting provider and have
> sufficient margins then running out of IPv4 space shouldn't really impact
> their business, as they can buy more on the open market with relative ease.
> If a company gets down to half a /24 left and can see they only have 6
> months during which they can fulfill current/new customer requests for IP
> space, then they know they need to either buy more space to extend that
> period, or slow down their growth (by increasing prices).
>
>
>
> Looking at China telecom for an example, they've taken the approach of not
> turning away new customers but instead allowing them all to fight over IPs
> to connect, which will continue to get worse and worse as time goes on.
> This will resolve itself inevitably either by CT losing customers to reach
> a stable equilibrium, or deciding the cost/benefit of implementing
> v6/NAT/whatever tipping point has been reached and therefore maintaining
> growth.
>
>
>
> Is anyone on this list that is running low on IP space actually going to
> lose any business, or will they simply fail to grow (as much)? Obviously
> inner workings business secrets aside it might be hard for people to step
> up and admit it, but I think it is reasonable to assume I'm not posing an
> irrefutable question here.
>
> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Bevan Slattery <bevan at slattery.net.au>
> wrote:
>
> This appears as though it may come as a shock to you Joshua but not
> everyone running out of space is a cheap hosting provider.
>
>
>
> B
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On 03/03/2013, at 12:15 PM, Joshua D'Alton <joshua at railgun.com.au> wrote:
>
> Size of the business doesn't really matter, its the margins that matter.
> You look at someone like Bulletproof, and while they probably don't do much
> more traffic than say serversaustralia, I'd bet they charge about 5x as
> much. And they support IPv6 AFAIK.
>
>
>
> @Peter, yea but there is only no benefit because the content providers
> like serversaustralia don't support it. Obviously it isn't limited to just
> Australia, most of serversaustralia sized businesses globally don't support
> IPv6, but imagine if they did.
>
>
>
> @Ross, might or might not make sense, but reality is reality. It isn't so
> much about them footing the bill for everyone else to change, it is about
> them being competitive in the market. If there is a business, 2yrs or 20
> years old, that is facing growth issues due to lack of IP space, then it is
> up to them to decide how they want to remain competitive. They could moan
> and groan about IPv4 prices coming down and the fact they can't get any
> more, or they could move to ipv6 where the potentially large upgrade cost
> becomes merely nominal if they look 20 years ahead.
>
>
>
> All these arguments seem to mirror the ones the copyright groups use.
> Somehow it is the rest of the worlds duty to keep their old dying business
> model alive.
>
> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Zone Networks - Joel <
> joel at zonenetworks.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> So what you are basically saying ..
>
>
>
> Small business cant afford to move to ipv6
>
> Large business can afford to move to ipv6 but couldnt give a damn..
>
>
>
> That is brilliant… so Aus has <1% ipv6 traffic and that is cause of all
> the small business not running ipv6
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net [mailto:
> ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] *On Behalf Of *Joshua D'Alton
> *Sent:* Sunday, 3 March 2013 12:34 PM
> *To:* AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> *Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] IPv4
>
>
>
> No one forced them into business. No one made them go for lower margins
> that would mean they aren't/weren't IPv6 ready.
>
>
>
> If they decided to hop onto the sinking ship without a lifevest, its their
> own damn fault. If they went into business with software like cPanel and
> did nothing to try push for proper IPv6 support, again that is their own
> fault. Bigpond and Optus have very little reason from content serving
> perspective to have IPv6, so it was up to the major sources of content to
> get their side ready so that people like Bigpond and Optus actually had
> benefit in rolling out IPv6. Do you think David Thodey is going to go to
> his board and say "oh hey guys, here's a $100 million proposal to ready our
> network for IPv6, of course it won't benefit anyone as none of the content
> out there is IPv6, but it will cost us more if we have to do it later" and
> get an answer anything other than "bugger off, not interested, it might
> cost us more later but all we care about is this years bottom line, screw
> the future that is the next CEOs problem"?
>
>
>
> Maybe instead of looking at it like the world is shafting these smaller
> businesses, maybe look at it like the world has given them a free ride all
> this time, and now it is time for them to step up. And if that means their
> business folds, well that means more customers for businesses that WILL
> survive and manage to implement IPv6 before the 22nd century.
>
>
>
> I gotta tell you though, over the past year or so there have been some
> fairly massive players on the global stage that have all started charging a
> lot more for IPv4, and aside from a few complaints from businesses being
> run out of India or Malaysia or somewhere where low margins work really
> well, the majority of customers have understood the reality of the cost of
> IPv4. And none of them have left the providers, because while the IPv4 cost
> increased, overall these lowish margin providers are still a damn sight
> cheaper than the majority of companies.
>
> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Peter Betyounan <
> peter at serversaustralia.com.au> wrote:
>
> So basically any new businesses that are 1/4 of that age are
> collateral damage in this mess , great view.
>
> There is no force behind change then software providers like Cpanel
> who would hold half the worlds content would move faster on forward
> planning on ipv6. Big providers are at fault as it has been said no
> residential move has been made by the likes of bigpond and Optus so
> take up has been short of nil by market as no substantial end users
> have ipv6.
>
> Laying the blame on small providers is plain wrong.
>
> Regards
> Peter Betyounan
> www.serversaustralia.com.au
>
>
>
> On 03/03/2013, at 7:06 AM, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> >
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: Peter Betyounan <peter at serversaustralia.com.au>
> >> To: Jared Hirst <jared.hirst at serversaustralia.com.au>
> >> Cc: "ausnog at lists.ausnog.net" <ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>
> >> Sent: Saturday, 2 March 2013 7:16 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] IPv4
> >>
> >>
> >> As I have always thought without forceful intervention by the governing
> bodies change will not come, financial incentives/penalties will be the key
> to this and until all big business can feel this change will not come why
> would it when they can CGNAT / buy more IP's / etc etc . The issue here is
> small to medium business who do not have the funds to buy more IP's will
> eventually die automatically monopolizing the market by leaving the big
> players which sucks for competition..../end rant.
> >
> > It won't specifically be IPv6 or running out of IPv4 addresses that will
> have caused these businesses to fail. What those businesses will have
> really done is failed to plan ahead. In this instance, they've had 10 to 15
> years to prepare and plan, and to incorporate the costs of the future
> upgrade into their current product prices. In most other instances e.g. a
> new tax, they'll have less than 12 months to prepare for it. A business
> that can't plan ahead with a 10 to 15 year notification period probably
> shouldn't deserve to survive, because it also probably doing a lot of other
> things wrong too, and has such slim margins that it doesn't have any
> ability to cope with the reasonable yet unexpected cost increases. Would
> they survive if power prices go up by 20%?
> >
> > This sounds harsh, but it is the reality. Businesses that aren't good at
> being a business fail, and the resources they weren't utilising very well
> (e.g. people, infrastructure), are absorbed into businesses that are better
> at being businesses.
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20130303/626780f4/attachment.html>