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

Daniel Roesen wrote:
> 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.

This is not what I meant. But why would endsite PI not be an option for
'real LIR's? What is a 'real LIR' actually according to you and what
isn't? They all are in it for the money in the end. If their business is
renting out "address space" (like the RIR's do effectively) then so be
it, that is their business.

> 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.

This is indeed what I meant with 'more expensive'.
There are maybe some LIR's now though who don't want to be a LIR, but
only did so to get address space. These might want to drop to the xxxxxs
membership category to reduce cost at a certain point.

>> 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.

There might not be one, but you can expect it to be this way. Maybe add
a 'failed request' 'extra work' 'number of requests' etc to the scoring
scheme to take care of this?

One time requesters most likely don't know the policy, while LIR's do as
they should be doing it way more often. Of course some independent
contractor could do a lot of PI requests for independent organisations,
but then that entity is sort of working like a LIR, but then differently.

>> 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.

Then let them donate a bit of money too. There seems to be a lot of
'free money' floating around on the web. Just for your enjoyment,
getting $430 US to smash up a brand new Xbox 360 seems possible:
  http://www.lapblog.com/xbox-360-smash-up/151/
Getting 2k EUR for something you apparently desperately want, call
critical and useful is not a problem then anymore I would assume.

>>> 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.

I thought you needed PI because you wanted to do "traffic engineering",
how are you going to do traffic engineering with the following in your
tables:

::/0 fe80::2 eth0
::/0 fe80::1 eth1

Or you only want "Inbound TE" ($world to you) and not "Outbound TE"?
Some people might want to do it differently.

>> 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.

Thus add extra prefixes to the routing tables, let everybody upgrade
their routers, but don't do it yourself. Nice. Letting others pay for
your dirt.

>> 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.

You want everything for free? :) I know the OCCAID folks are getting
close to a global free transit network, but they also only arrive at
IX's, your equipment still needs to be there to use those resources.
People are not coming to you. But hey you know that very well :)

Also note the 'might' in the above block of text, it is an idea for
helping out the people who want things for free.

> 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.

Oh don't worry, I don't see that working either. Too much politics.

Greets,
 Jeroen

PS: where are all those companies who are in desperate need for this?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 238 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20051207/62c8e960/attachment.sig>