[address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mikael Abrahamsson
swmike at swm.pp.se
Wed Apr 20 17:49:46 CEST 2011
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > There is no way to redistribute a "FIB-entry-surcharge" to whatever or > whoever believes to "suffer" from this proposed change in policy. As I stated before, I don't care if they get the money in cash from the bank and BURN them at a BBQ, as long as the money is paid so as to stop people using it who don't really have any real business use for it. I don't want the money, I just want there to be *substantial cost* to take up a DFZ slot. Preferrably it should be paid per slot as well, so people de-aggregating their blocks have to pay more, but I don't know any way to do that. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]