[address-policy-wg] Re: Re: Re: a consensus, about what?

On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 08:31:43AM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> > You have an AS and do multihome? Pay a small one-time fee (reg effort)
> > and small annual fee (to verify that you still do exist care for the
> > prefix to stay registered, and to cover costs for the database entries
> > for your prefix) and be done with it.[1]
> 
> Note that the billing should then still be 'more' expensive than a LIR's
> individual allocation otherwise most LIR's will convert into
> independents which gives one more power over prefixes than the above.

Nonsense. PI doesn't let the LIR assign IP space to their customers. End
site PI ain't an option for real LIRs.

Then again, IPv6 PA allocations are extremely easy on NCC workload as
the LIR doesn't have to get back to hostmasters for each assignment
below the AW (which is 0 in the beginning). So perhaps the cost (score)
for IPv6 PA allocations should be SIGNIFICANTLY lower than IPv4 PA
allocations. Which would also mean that in relation there should be a
XXXXS membership category for folks with only ASN and IPv6 PA alloc
which fits the actual workload level... which is almost zero until this
LIR comes back and asks for more than the initial no-questions-asked /32
allocation.

> A LIR should know the procedures which should make requests very easy to
> process, at least that is the idea, which lowers load on the RIR's.

Should. Please come back with some hard data from NCC to explain to us
that PI holders place a higher workload on NCC staff than any real LIR.
Good luck.

> Also, what is your equipment budget? At least 2 routers, 2 uplinks,
> man-power and a lot of other things. What is ~2K EUR then anyway?

You mean "you invested already, so throw some more money out the window,
it doesn't hurt too much more"? Especially for non-commercial orgs
routers can be donations too, e.g. because they got phased out.

> > All those folks who question the right of ASses (AUTONOMOUS systems) to
> > have their own IP space and a routing table slot (in lieu of a better,
> > sufficiently!capable replacement architecture) for technical reasons
> > ("but our routers will break!") should ask themselves one question: are
> > YOU ready to return YOUR prefix(es) because you are NOT in the routing
> > tier 1 club? If not, SHUT UP. Thanks. All but the real routing Tier 1s
> > don't have any TECHNICAL need to announce their own allocations. All
> > other non-upstream-free ISPs only have ECONOMIC reasons to do so. You
> 
> With a too large routing table (which are indeed far from there) for the
> currently deployed routers it will indeed be very economical as they
> need to be upgraded. But this does depend on landrush. Running out of
> 65k ASN's is the first thing that will happen. Though I wonder if some
> smaller routers still deployed at endsites will like to handle that.

There is no need for that. Read again. Noone except the real Tier 1s
have the _technical_ _necessity_ to run default-free. All others can
filter as much as they want, and use default route(s) for all else.

> Economics, that is people who won't be able to update their routers,
> will then figure out who can have a slot there or not.

No, they will start to default as they still need to access the content.

> RIR's fortunately do not guarantee routability, thus them giving out
> /48's from a single global /16 or so, to sites 'that desperately need
> them', allows people who don't want them to filter when table pressure
> become tight. Adding some geography in that big block might even allow
> one to at least carry the traffic to a 'local' IX to hand it off.

Hand it off to whom? You need paid transit for that. That complicates
things enormously. That's the whole can-of-worms related to geographic/
geopolitic addressing+routing. I won't delve into that here as it was
discussed at length elsewhere.


Regards,
Daniel

-- 
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0