OT: cheap colo space in Southern Germany/Munich

[Eugen Leitl]

On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 03:56:05PM +0100, Jens Weibler wrote:

> I agree Mikael.. It was an interessting discussion (and quite funny) but  

I agree it was funny, but probably not for the reasons you think.

> we should get back to topic.

Have we ever left the topic?

> If you want other concepts of address allocation you are free to write a  
> draft. IPv6 has enough space for these kinds for experiments ;)

There's already an RFC for that http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4193
and it's the minimum size for any IPv6 as public key (notice that 
this is tunneled, so routable). For encoding geography, a /64 is quite 
enough. 

> I'm sure that some companies oder universities will give back parts for  
> their ip space but this doesn't scale.

It is completely irrelevant. My provider would sustain less than a 
day of growth if I return my addresses which I've reserved in anticipation
of future growth. It's just an issue of increasing your profit by
cannibalizing your customer's business model. Fuck your customers, right?
Who needs them.

> Sure - I've got a few /24 as reserve at my faculty, but giving it back  
> is nearly impossible. And I'm lucky that I have that reserve: more and  

It is very possible if every address from that subnet costs you 5 EUR.

> more clients are using wireless (I don't want NAT), I get projects like  
> BigData on my desk and so on..
>
>
> The only way is ipv6 and as Gert said "lots of pains, costs and tears"  
> will await those who aren't ready for ipv6.

The funny part is the the early adopters, and those with the foresight
are the ones who're presented with the bill. Hilarious.

> Hetzner might be one of the first but many companies will get to this  
> problem and IPv4 will get expensive. Maybe this way we get the pressure  
> (or "business value") needed for a fast(er) IPv6 migration.

There's certainly a lot of demand destruction going on. I doubt many
end customers will notice.