Re: IPv6 Thought Experiment

[Stephen Satchell <list () satchell net>]

On 10/2/19 9:33 AM, Antonios Chariton wrote:
> Dear list,
> First of all, let me apologize if this post is not allowed by the
> list. To my best interpretation of the guidelines [1] it is allowed, but
> may be in a gray area due to rule #7.
>
> I would like to propose the following thought experiment about IPv6,
> and I would like your opinion on what you believe would happen in such a
> case. Feel free to reply on or off list.
>
> What if, globally, and starting at January 1st, 2020, someone 
> (imagine a government or similar, but with global reach) imposed an 
> IPv4 tax. For every IPv4 address on the Global Internet Routing
> Table, you had to pay a tax. Let’s assume that this can be imposed,
> must be paid, and cannot be avoided using some loophole. Let’s say
> that this tax would be $2, and it would double, every 3 or 6 months.

Who exactly would be paying this tax?  The IPv4 address "owner"?  The
SWIP?  The end user who gets IPv4 via DHCP from his provider?

Tax paid to whom?

> What do you think would happen? Would it be the only way to reach 
> 100% IPv6 deployment, or even that wouldn’t be sufficient?
Well, a lot of money would change hands.  Somebody would be enriched by
the tax revenues.

> And for bonus points, consider the following: what if all
> certification bodies of equipment, for certifications like FCC’s or CE
> in Europe, for applications after Jan 1st 2023 would include a “MUST
> NOT support IPv4”..

So how would that affect users trying to access IPv4 resources?

> What I am trying to understand is whether deploying IPv6 is a pure
> financial problem. If it is, in this scenario, it would very very soon
> become much more pricey to not deploy it.

First, there are equipment issues -- not all gear "plays nice" with
IPv6, especially older gear still in use.  There is a capital cost
associated with upgrading gear, and not all organizations and people can
afford the hit.

There are policies in place, beyond the RFCs, by companies and
governments that would need to be updated, and the tax you suggest
doesn't even begin to attack the problems.

> I know there are a lot of gaps in this, for example who imposes this,
> what is the "Global Internet Routing Table", etc. but let’s try to
> see around them, to the core idea behind them.
Has BCP-38 been updated to include IPv6?
https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp38

All the examples are IPv4.  Additionally, one of the reference is this:
Baker, F., "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers", RFC 1812, June 1995.

If people are serious about IPv6, isn't it time to update the Best
Practices documents, particularly BCP-38 et al, to address IPv6 as well
as IPv4?