[address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-2
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-2
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-2
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Per Heldal
heldal at eml.cc
Fri Oct 29 22:53:15 CEST 2010
On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 10:17 -0400, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Consider: > LIR 1, an incumbent, proves it needs a /16 to meet demand caused by growth in the number of its existing customers. > LIR 2, a startup, also proves it needs a /16 to start up > > Your policy privileges any actor in the category LIR 2 and penalizes actors in category LIR 1. Both LIRs would be eligible for address-blocks assigned from the general pool. After depletion this means space that has been reclaimed or in some other way returned to the RIR for reuse. > > > Question 1: why are the customers of LIR 2 more important than the customers of LIR 1? They are not. BOTH LIRs are expected to accomodate _growth_ in customer numbers through IPv6. NEITHER will get a large enough adress-block from the reserve to meet their growth needs. At most they'd get a /20 or /22 to establish transition services, no /16. The RIR's intention is to provide your LIR2 with a small block they can use to provide connectivity to existing IPv4 services for their IPv6 customers. > Question 2: why wouldn't LIR 1 form a new company and call it a startup to get privileged access to addresses? Or, might LIR 3, LIR 1's long standing competitor, form a new LIR to gain an advantage in the competition for resources? > > One could argue for your position by noting that LIRs who already have some blocks of ipv4 are in a position to economize on and/or NAT those addresses, whereas an ISP without any can't do that. That provides some answer to Q1. But it doesn't deal with the problems around Q2. > Exactly. Most, if not all, networks of significant size have a small chunk of spare addresses they can recycle for transition services. A new LIR OTOH has nothing and could theoretically be blocked from entering the market. //per
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-2
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-2
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]