[address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it lessdestructive
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tim Streater
tim.streater at dante.org.uk
Tue May 9 11:55:05 CEST 2006
At 10:44 09/05/2006, Nick Hilliard wrote: >On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 10:03 +0100, Tim Streater wrote: > > At 19:01 08/05/2006, Sascha Luck wrote: > > >An arbitrary fee, specifically designed to block someone's entry into > > >*any* market, is *illegal*, at least in any non-communist country that > > >I know. > > > >[...] > > Folks are going to come to terms with the fact that the v6 routing > > table is going to have large numbers of entries. > >IPv6 will be much better aggregated than ipv4, because the allocation >blocks are larger, and the requirement for LIRs to request multiple >non-contiguous blocks of space will be much lower. This necessarily >means that ipv6 table growth is going to be lesser than the ipv4 table >growth, which has also lagged behind hardware speed increases. What's >the problem here?? The fact that there are many more bits to allocate. >As regards cost, PI space requires RIR administration, and that costs >money. Additionally, there needs to be a means for RIRs to legitimately >reclaim PI space. Charging a fee appears to be good way of dealing with >both problems. It doesn't need to be a huge amount of money, but money >needs to be involved. > >I would like to suggest that after initial liaison with the local LIR, >that the end-user relationship would then revert to the RIR. The RIR >would then be responsible for charging the end-user, and the LIR would >be removed from the equation. > >This will require time and resources to set up, and that means that >charging a fee will be completely justified. This will fix two things >which completely fail to make sense about the current RIPE (ipv4) >assignment policy: > > 1. there is no default means of returning PI space to the RIR if > the end-user disappears > 2. the LIR is effectively charged for the assignment, even if the > end-user moves to another LIR's domain. > >Problem #1 is a really serious issue and needs to be tackled urgently. I think these are very good suggestions; there should be an annual fee for use of the PI block. This will fix the administrative aspects and should be retro-fitted to v4. Moving to the RIR administering the PI space also protects against the LIR disappearing. -- Tim
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it lessdestructive
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]