Anyone charging end users for IPv6 space yet? 
Just wondering, with so many IPv6 resources in a single allocation it
would seem difficult to charge anything at all.
1. How are you making up loss of revenue on IPv4 assignments?
2. Are you charging anything?
3. Is the cost built into the service?
4. Do you assign IPv6 space to end user and charge admin fee?
Take care,
Otis
Nope, and no plans to.
~Seth
FWIW - Comcast isn't charging for native connectivity to residential users.
/TJ
I can't imagine that this would be anything but counterproductive. End users are not interested in IPv6 - most would not recognize IPv6 if it fell out of their screen. End users want working connectivity, not jargon.
James R. Cutler
james.cutler@consultant.com
IPv6 users cost me less money (CGN resources), i wish i had a business
method for giving them discounts and meaningful incentives for using
IPv6.
Today, my retail mobile phones users can have 1 NAT'd IPv4 address or
2^64 public IPv6 addresses + NAT64 to reach IPv4 destinations. Most
don't use the IPv6 address option yet 
But the number of folks electing to use IPv6 is increasing with more
phones available (4 Androids now support HSPA+ IPv6) and more IPv6
awareness
CB
If my ISP charged me fees for IPv6 space, I'd ditch them. They already make enough money as is from modem/cable box rentals.
Derek
Hi,
Anyone charging end users for IPv6 space yet?
Just wondering, with so many IPv6 resources in a single allocation it
would seem difficult to charge anything at all.1. How are you making up loss of revenue on IPv4 assignments?
If revenue from IPv4 assignments is an issue, then the solution is to adjust your business model to not depend on that revenue. As an ISP, the business is to ship bits around.
2. Are you charging anything?
Haven't ever charged for IPv6 allocations...
3. Is the cost built into the service?
The cost of IPv6 is so negligible (well unless you need advanced software licenses -- hi brocade), that I don't see any point in even accounting the cost of providing IPv6 into a service fee.
4. Do you assign IPv6 space to end user and charge admin fee?
By assign, do you mean SWIP? Some places charge an admin fee to do a SWIP, but for setting up an allocation, I have never heard of an admin fee.
William
If anyone's ISPs are overcharging them, I will be able to provide
service for no more than 1 cent per available routable IPv6 address in
any netblock from /64 on up. We have a reasonable startup rate of a
/56 for the price of a /64 for the remainder of 2012, even!
-george
To that end I've never charged for IPv4, either.
~Seth
By end user I mean hosting clients (cloud, collocation, shared, dedicated, VPS, etc.) of any sort. For example you have clients that would need....say /24 for their dedicated server. If you charge a $1.00/IP which is typical then you would lose that revenue if they converted to IPv6. If you didn't charge for IPv4 then you have nothing to to lose.
Otis
Hi!
By end user I mean hosting clients (cloud, collocation, shared, dedicated, VPS, etc.) of any sort. For example you have clients that would need....say /24 for their dedicated server. If you charge a $1.00/IP which is typical then you would lose that revenue if they converted to IPv6. If you didn't charge for IPv4 then you have nothing to to lose.
A possible revenue-recovery model would be to charge say $2 per IP for services below a certain resource threshold, for example 1gb vps or larger get free IPs and dedicated servers get free IPs. This helps to increase margin as some people will upgrade to more expensive plans to get the free IPv4s. In hosting you can just issue /128s on ipv6 and require upgrades to get larger allocations.
William
ISPs already charge for bandwidth link capacity. Why charge a fee to
discourage subscribers from adopting a protocol that will let the ISP
sell larger capacity links?
IPv6 packet headers are 40 bytes length, Versus IPv4 headers which
were ~20 bytes.
Add value. You must not charge for the addresses at all, they are not
yours, you can't sell them.
In every "smart" business, the future is not anymore selling "goods" but
added value.
If you have a quasi-unlimited number of addresses in every customer, you
can star building up new value added services and applications, either
in-house or with the cooperation of third-party developers, such as in the
case of the app-store and likes.
You will ger a small revenue for every new service or app, but times many
customers/month, and this will increase the demand of bw, so you will be
able to sell bigger pipes.
Regards,
Jordi
I would say that the typical usage, at least here in the US, is that an End User is the one holding an iPhone or sitting at a computer watching the Olympics, and, ultimately, paying that last mile fee.
Even using your definition, the costs of connectivity (routers, wires, management) far exceeds the cost of addressing. Given the quantity of numbers available for IP addressing, it is does not make economic sense to even construct a billing mechanism for IPv6 addressing beyond those of the LIRs, RIRs, etc. Purchase IPv6 connectivity includes the assumption of IPv6 addressing included.
You must not charge for the addresses at all, they are not
yours, you can't sell them.
do i pay for them?
NO, you don't. You _MIGHT_ pay for registration services where you are paying for the service of having them uniquely registered in the RIR system.
You MIGHT have paid some other organization for the privilege of transferring part or all of their registration rights to you.
But in no case did you pay for the addresses themselves unless you are silly enough to think that a person can own an integer.
Owen
I was thinking about End User in a sense of one to simply consume a product or a service offered by a service provider. However, I should have left room for those that are assigned GUA space by a service provider and reassign space to their end users. (i.e. Allocated /48 and reassign /64 or /56)
I do agree that the infrastructure and management costs out way the costs of provider independent space. I agree it would be extremely difficult to setup some sort of fee for any prefix size in IPv6.
Then it's fair to say the approach should be simply to chalk the lose in IPv4 revenue and move on. It's not a big concern for us. I was just curious as to the large providers that make extra money off those wanting more IPv4 addresses.
I was thinking about End User in a sense of one to simply consume a product or a service offered by a service provider. However, I should have left room for those that are assigned GUA space by a service provider and reassign space to their end users. (i.e. Allocated /48 and reassign /64 or /56)
That shouldn't happen... If you are acting as an LIR, you should be getting at least a /32 and you should be assigning at least a /48 to your end users.
I do agree that the infrastructure and management costs out way the costs of provider independent space. I agree it would be extremely difficult to setup some sort of fee for any prefix size in IPv6.
Then it's fair to say the approach should be simply to chalk the lose in IPv4 revenue and move on. It's not a big concern for us. I was just curious as to the large providers that make extra money off those wanting more IPv4 addresses.
Is it really a loss? If you're doing things right, IPv4 is costing you more and more and more money every year. When your IPv4 revenue goes away, so should your IPv4 costs.
Owen
IPv6 missed a great chance of doing away with all the
central waterfall trickle-down space distribution.
Luckily, /64 looks like large enough to bypass that
by offering address space sufficiently large while
co-existable with legacy addressing and routing.
I hope eventually somebody will start
tinkering with mesh radios which also have GPS
onboard (as most smartphones and tablets do).
24 + 24 + 16 bits are just enough to represent
a decent-resolution WGS84 position fix. Plus,
GPS gives you a pretty accurate clock.
Yes, very interesting. I wonder how do you achieve full scale
software testing for a mesh networking platform efficiently?
Do any of the virtual machine monitors Xen, KVM, etc
support an emulated 802.11n/other radio device that allows you to
configure "Emulated location and geography" for each virtual node,
to test various protocols and implementations across p2p wireless
meshes by simulating realistic connectivity performance?
