[address-policy-wg] Re: Re: a consensus, about what?

Daniel Roesen wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 11:02:57AM -0800, David Kessens wrote:
>> The discussion should focus on who can get an IP address space
>> allocation from the RIR and how large.
> 
> And at which price.
> 
> It's ridiculous to ask the same price from someone who does a single
> request for IP space and ~never come back, and from someone who starts
> as a real LIR (you [not you personally] remember? Local Internet
> REGISTRY!) which does subassigments to hundreds of end users, have those
> requests validated by NCC hostmasters, take part in LIR trainings etc.
> pp.
> 
> You have an AS and do multihome? Pay a small one-time fee (reg effort)
> and small annual fee (to verify that you still do exist care for the
> prefix to stay registered, and to cover costs for the database entries
> for your prefix) and be done with it.[1]

Note that the billing should then still be 'more' expensive than a LIR's
individual allocation otherwise most LIR's will convert into
independents which gives one more power over prefixes than the above.
A LIR should know the procedures which should make requests very easy to
process, at least that is the idea, which lowers load on the RIR's.

Also, what is your equipment budget? At least 2 routers, 2 uplinks,
man-power and a lot of other things. What is ~2K EUR then anyway?
Or are you already saving for a bigger fatter router?

> But that would be too simple, too fair, too non-discriminating, offer
> too much independency to mere mortal entities.

But isn't a RIR, or IANA/ICANN then not directly monopolitic?
They are the only ones you can get address space from "and ruled by the
US" etc.

> All those folks who question the right of ASses (AUTONOMOUS systems) to
> have their own IP space and a routing table slot (in lieu of a better,
> sufficiently!capable replacement architecture) for technical reasons
> ("but our routers will break!") should ask themselves one question: are
> YOU ready to return YOUR prefix(es) because you are NOT in the routing
> tier 1 club? If not, SHUT UP. Thanks. All but the real routing Tier 1s
> don't have any TECHNICAL need to announce their own allocations. All
> other non-upstream-free ISPs only have ECONOMIC reasons to do so. You

With a too large routing table (which are indeed far from there) for the
currently deployed routers it will indeed be very economical as they
need to be upgraded. But this does depend on landrush. Running out of
65k ASN's is the first thing that will happen. Though I wonder if some
smaller routers still deployed at endsites will like to handle that.
Economics, that is people who won't be able to update their routers,
will then figure out who can have a slot there or not.

RIR's fortunately do not guarantee routability, thus them giving out
/48's from a single global /16 or so, to sites 'that desperately need
them', allows people who don't want them to filter when table pressure
become tight. Adding some geography in that big block might even allow
one to at least carry the traffic to a 'local' IX to hand it off.

> All those
> enterprises, non-commercial organizations and clubs who want/need PI
> aren't really represesented here.

Very simple answer: find them and let them speak up.
Setup a union to represent them if you want etc. This is politics crap:
if you don't raise your voice, don't complain that you are not heard.
Same in real 'technical' places, which are usually downright political
also and usually the big buck is what matters. Unfortunately that will
always be the case, but that is the world of politics. Just ask around
how many of your neighbors voted for Miss Merkel, does that match the
national German votes? Not even asking who voted for Bush :)

Greets,
 Jeroen

(Who still thinks what I wrote up at
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2005/msg01269.html
can work fine, then the economy, that is other ASN's will limit what
they will accept at a certain point)

(And who doesn't want his own "PI" space, I'll let other people take
care of all, who can do it much better :)


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 238 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20051207/5d3d4876/attachment.sig>