[ppml] [address-policy-wg] Re: 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): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Re: Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Marshall Eubanks
tme at multicasttech.com
Thu Apr 20 18:32:23 CEST 2006
Hello; On Apr 20, 2006, at 11:28 AM, Pekka Savola wrote: > On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Joao Damas wrote: >>>> As has been discussed at ARIN, this is a good way to get the >>>> government to >>>> declare the RIR a monopoly engaging in anticompetitive >>>> behavior. I for >>>> one don't want that. >> >> Pekka, this doesn't sound like the right way to do policy, and yes, >> things that smell like "big guys get it, small guys don't" will be >> looked at suspiciously and rightly so. Criteria ought to be of a >> technical nature. > > I'm assuming this is already in reference to, "PI should cost money" > instead of "PI shouldn't be available, period"... > > Larger end-sites already have 10-20k+ annual budget (most have much, > much larger than that): caused by CAPEX by getting at least two > routers, OPEX by paying to multiple ISPs for fibers, transit, etc. and > salaries of network engineering staff. > Yes, but I know many of people (including myself and basically all of my clients) who would regard a $ 5K tax as pretty onerous. You also run the risk of giving people the feeling that the system is weighted towards the large stakeholders. Now, I do not feel that way, but I hear from plenty of people who do, and it's hard to see how they wouldn't take it this way. Regards Marshall > AFAICS, whether or not a PI space would cost 0, 1000 or 5000 USD a > year is NOT a barrier for entry. It's just *one* metric (you may be > able to think of technical metrics that could imply the same, I can't) > to say, "if you REALLY don't need this, it'd be nice if you seriously > consider PA address space". > >> Don't want PI: propose a feasible alternative that provides the same >> functionality under the current routing system, while looking for >> a better >> system > > Use PA addresses and Unique Local Addresses if you really think you > need them. Push for shim6. Put some work on solving the remaining > problems if there really are any that aren't caused by the desire to > graze the commons for free. > > Maybe I should have snipped this quote, as this seems like a rathole > which isn't worth exploring (again) here... > > -- > Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the > Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." > Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings > _______________________________________________ > PPML mailing list > PPML at arin.net > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
- 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): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Re: Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]