RE: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive

[Jørgen Hovland jorgen@localhost]

-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg-admin@localhost [
	    
	    
] On Behalf Of Pekka Savola

Hello,

A few words.

> The upper limit is around the number of AS numbers, and if it's 
> expanded to 32 bits, at least I start to feel uncomforable... "Umm.. 
> are we sure 64K folks playing around at DFZ isn't enough??? we want 4B 
> instead...????"

The upper limit is infinite.  There is no requirement to first request an AS number to get a PI prefix (in this region) or to even use the AS.


> Remember, it's easy and cheap to have a multihoming setup with two DSL 
> lines...

It is cheaper to get redundancy than multihoming which is more or less the same thing. But they want multihoming, okay.


> Come on, arguing that 1K or even 5K is an "excessive fee" for PI 
> prefixes in the context of reliable multihoming setup and services 
> provided seems a bit absurd.  I'd agree that if the charge was 100K 
> per year, this could be considered locking out smaller competitors, 
> but (say) 1K is nothing -- that's less than 100 bucks a month!

I think the fee should be the same as a normal LIR. I see no reason not to. Ah ok. Let's decrease it by €25 due to database storage and processing applications when the AW is not large enough.

> You might even consider a payment like 1K or 2K fair: small ISPs which 
> get exactly the same resources have to pay such in their membership 
> fees. Obviously the end-sites should pay at least the same if they 
> consume the same resources..

Agreed.

And the size of the prefix shouldn't matter as long as it is higher than the recommended(?) /48 filter limit. Complicated policies are a pain and makes people ignore/forget/misunderstand them. Yes it will potentially create a trillion prefixes in the table, but you are free to ignore them should someone carve their /19 into /48s - just like you are with IPv4 today.


j