[address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jørgen Hovland
jorgen at hovland.cx
Thu Apr 20 23:31:37 CEST 2006
-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] 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
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]