[address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Daniel Roesen
dr at cluenet.de
Tue Apr 5 15:33:06 CEST 2005
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 03:20:45PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > >It reduces the possible amount of applicants from "anybody out there" > >(many billions) to "anybody who thinks this is so important to his > >heart / business that he's willing to shell out serious money for it". > > So you agree that an excessive number of prefixes is bad? What is excessive? Is it "anything as long as _I_ get my prefix"? > Then the only thing we disagree about is whether the LIR fee will be > enough to make the number non-excessive. It will at first, of course, > but it's unlikely to do so in the long term as RIRs are not-for-profit > so the more people become a LIR, the lower the fees become. And then there are the non-for-profit orgs who want to multihome properly. You want to keep them out because they don't have enough money to spend to RIRs for that, right? Regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]