[address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mikael Abrahamsson
swmike at swm.pp.se
Wed Jan 16 12:06:54 CET 2008
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Marcin Gondek wrote: > If the price will be higher, then everybody join to RIPE as LIR. And > then we will have +1000% of LIRs. Do "we" need this? Now everybody is > waiting for some kind of statesment or procedure from RIPE side. I don't really care, I want that there should be a recurring cost involved with having a route in DFZ. If that money goes to RIPE, so be it. I know people today that could renumber to another /24 from their existing /24 in a matter of a few hours, yet they still have a /24 PI for convenience. If the cost was 1000EUR per year (doesn't matter if it's LIR membership cost or something else) only people that actually value this highly will have it. It might be coupled to having a route object attached to the IP space in question that actually triggers the cost, so people who need PI but who are not going to announce them can have them for free. I would happily advocate this for IPv4 as well but I think that train left the station long ago. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]