Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 13:53:25 -0500 (CDT)
From: Tim Salo <salo(_at_)networkcs(_dot_)com>
Message-ID: <200008031853(_dot_)NAA34967(_at_)us(_dot_)networkcs(_dot_)com>
| Geeks like us care about end-to-end transparency. Refrigerator's don't.
Refrigerators don't care about connectivity at all. They don't care
about anything at all. Refrigerator owners care about connectivity,
and even geeks can be refrigerator owners. Personally I want my
refrigerator to have end to end transparency (I'd care less about the
toaster, doing anything useful to that when not physically close is
harder to imagine).
| And, if IPvX addresses cost money, a lot of households will pay money
| for devices that enable them to operate with only one IP address.
True. However there's no reason to assume that it will be possible to
get less than a (very large really) block of addresses, so if you pay for
the one, you're going to get a lot to go along with it.
There's no question but that address assignment and management costs, and
needs to be paid for, and as with anything, it is the end consumers who
pay in the end (everyone else just passes along the costs, whether they're
separately listed, or just bundled in an overall price for service).
However, with IPv6 there's no longer the need for the rationing push on
prices that exists in IPv4. It costs a certain amount to perform an
assignment (and record it, etc) - it doesn't really matter how big the
assignment is, with IPv6 there should be no differentiated costs for
address assignments based upon size.
kre