4 ms·

A Shrinking Pie? The IPv4 Transfer Market in 2017

27 points by okket 9y ago

alex_duf 9y ago
Just in case people wonder how ipv6 is doing: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
- orf 9y ago
  Interesting, it's gained about 10% usage in the last year (~10% to 18-22% globally). Not bad!
  - ema 9y ago
    Eyeballing that chart though it seems to have slowed down in the last half of the year. Also interesting the pattern of slowed down adoption in the beginning of each. I wonder what's up with that.
    - delibes 9y ago
      Was thinking the same, but more eyeballing also makes me think there's always a slowdown or even dip in Jan/Feb. That seems even stranger.
      - MrRadar 9y ago
        Maybe people buying new IPv6-capable devices at the end of the year during the holidays and then fewer buying them over the next few months? It's also interesting to note the difference between weekend and weekday IPv6 traffic (~18% vs ~20%). Businesses are apparently far behind consumers in adopting it.
  - throwawayReply 9y ago
    ~10% to ~20% is closer to 100% gain than 10% gain. From 1 in 10 to 2 in 10 people is a doubling of people! This is why percentage is a bad measure when it can represent two things (percentage or percentage-points). I like log-odds as a scale to use to represent adoption, going from negative infinity with no adoption through zero (at 50%) to positive infinity at full adoption, but with a typical range of -2 (~1%) to +2 (~99%) when using base e. (Although you can use any base). By that scale it went from -0.95 to -0.65.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
baybal2 9y ago
If you need to set up even a very small ISP, you will still need to have a relatively sizable v4 ip pool. Why a radical solution - NAT64 sees much better traction with anybody, but largest ISP's than a "soft landing" solution of 464XLAT favored by big co. is that: 1. Setting up a nat is a 5 minute exercise. 2. It appeals to beancounters because freed IPv4 blocks can be profitably sold. 3. Skype/netmeeting/netflix broke? Not our problem - ISP says. You can see that the proportion of big to small ISPs is much lower outside of USA, and the West in general. And fewer of them bothers with things like direct peering with CDN networks, installing youtube cache appliance or dealing with Neflix openconnect, unless being paid to do so.
- rocqua 9y ago
  Make it mandatory for ISPs to offer leases (at regulated prices) of their last mile to competitors. All of a sudden, the barrier to entry for new wired ISPs drops. Then, when an ISP fucks up sufficiently, competing ISPs can actually jump in and fill the gap. That last mile is what is building the internet monopolies.
  - Steltek 9y ago
    Wasn't that what the US had with DSL? Copper lines had to be made available. Locally, cable was always faster so that's what we went with. DSL was cheaper though. Anyone recall what the experience was like?
    - xhrpost 9y ago
      Also, they only have to resell ADSL by FCC requirement. However, AT&T voluntarily resells their VDSL Uverse system. I actually went with a reseller in the past because they were still offering no data caps while AT&T was.
    - toast0 9y ago
      In California, what is now AT&T offered retail DSL below the cost to wholesalers, and was very slow to offer 'uverse' (adsl2 and vdsl, for speeds over 6Mbps) to wholesalers. For ADSL1, it was a compelling offering, the data portion of the circuit was delivered to the wholesaler, so they could deliver things like straight Ethernet over ATM, instead of PPP over Ethernet, and had different IP routing than At&t, for uverse, it was basically a normal att account billed to the wholesaler. Getting problems fixed could be problematic because of dealing with one company that had to deal with another; otoh they were experts at dealing with att, because they did it so often. Also: the FCC decided line sharing didn't apply to cable internet pretty early in the lifetime of cable internet. Then when DSL companies complained (through courts) that that wasn't fair, the FCC said we have enough competition between cable, DSL, and power line (yeah) so DSL companies don't need to line share either; only voice needs to be line shared.
ramshanker 9y ago
Meanwhile my ISP Excitel is happy with CGN only :(. They don't even announce IPv6 on their routing table. The moment someone else offers equivalent speed 50Mbps symmetric Unlimited for $13/Month, I will be out.
- ta2384428 9y ago
  My god, I have the privilege of paying $60/Month for 4Mbps - not symmetric
matt4711 9y ago
Hetzner is involved in many of the non-related entity transfers.

27 points by okket 9y ago

Just in case people wonder how ipv6 is doing: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html

orf 9y ago
Interesting, it's gained about 10% usage in the last year (~10% to 18-22% globally). Not bad!
- ema 9y ago
  Eyeballing that chart though it seems to have slowed down in the last half of the year. Also interesting the pattern of slowed down adoption in the beginning of each. I wonder what's up with that.
  - delibes 9y ago
    Was thinking the same, but more eyeballing also makes me think there's always a slowdown or even dip in Jan/Feb. That seems even stranger.
    - MrRadar 9y ago
      Maybe people buying new IPv6-capable devices at the end of the year during the holidays and then fewer buying them over the next few months? It's also interesting to note the difference between weekend and weekday IPv6 traffic (~18% vs ~20%). Businesses are apparently far behind consumers in adopting it.
- throwawayReply 9y ago
  ~10% to ~20% is closer to 100% gain than 10% gain. From 1 in 10 to 2 in 10 people is a doubling of people! This is why percentage is a bad measure when it can represent two things (percentage or percentage-points). I like log-odds as a scale to use to represent adoption, going from negative infinity with no adoption through zero (at 50%) to positive infinity at full adoption, but with a typical range of -2 (~1%) to +2 (~99%) when using base e. (Although you can use any base). By that scale it went from -0.95 to -0.65.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

baybal2 9y ago

If you need to set up even a very small ISP, you will still need to have a relatively sizable v4 ip pool. Why a radical solution - NAT64 sees much better traction with anybody, but largest ISP's than a "soft landing" solution of 464XLAT favored by big co. is that: 1. Setting up a nat is a 5 minute exercise. 2. It appeals to beancounters because freed IPv4 blocks can be profitably sold. 3. Skype/netmeeting/netflix broke? Not our problem - ISP says. You can see that the proportion of big to small ISPs is much lower outside of USA, and the West in general. And fewer of them bothers with things like direct peering with CDN networks, installing youtube cache appliance or dealing with Neflix openconnect, unless being paid to do so.

rocqua 9y ago
Make it mandatory for ISPs to offer leases (at regulated prices) of their last mile to competitors. All of a sudden, the barrier to entry for new wired ISPs drops. Then, when an ISP fucks up sufficiently, competing ISPs can actually jump in and fill the gap. That last mile is what is building the internet monopolies.
- Steltek 9y ago
  Wasn't that what the US had with DSL? Copper lines had to be made available. Locally, cable was always faster so that's what we went with. DSL was cheaper though. Anyone recall what the experience was like?
  - xhrpost 9y ago
    Also, they only have to resell ADSL by FCC requirement. However, AT&T voluntarily resells their VDSL Uverse system. I actually went with a reseller in the past because they were still offering no data caps while AT&T was.
  - toast0 9y ago
    In California, what is now AT&T offered retail DSL below the cost to wholesalers, and was very slow to offer 'uverse' (adsl2 and vdsl, for speeds over 6Mbps) to wholesalers. For ADSL1, it was a compelling offering, the data portion of the circuit was delivered to the wholesaler, so they could deliver things like straight Ethernet over ATM, instead of PPP over Ethernet, and had different IP routing than At&t, for uverse, it was basically a normal att account billed to the wholesaler. Getting problems fixed could be problematic because of dealing with one company that had to deal with another; otoh they were experts at dealing with att, because they did it so often. Also: the FCC decided line sharing didn't apply to cable internet pretty early in the lifetime of cable internet. Then when DSL companies complained (through courts) that that wasn't fair, the FCC said we have enough competition between cable, DSL, and power line (yeah) so DSL companies don't need to line share either; only voice needs to be line shared.

ramshanker 9y ago

Meanwhile my ISP Excitel is happy with CGN only :(. They don't even announce IPv6 on their routing table. The moment someone else offers equivalent speed 50Mbps symmetric Unlimited for $13/Month, I will be out.

ta2384428 9y ago
My god, I have the privilege of paying $60/Month for 4Mbps - not symmetric

matt4711 9y ago

Hetzner is involved in many of the non-related entity transfers.