[address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Joao Damas wrote:
>>> As has been discussed at ARIN, this is a good way to get the government to
>>> declare the RIR a monopoly engaging in anticompetitive behavior.  I for
>>> one don't want that.
>
> Pekka, this doesn't sound like the right way to do policy, and yes, 
> things that smell like "big guys get it, small guys don't" will be 
> looked at suspiciously and rightly so. Criteria ought to be of a 
> technical nature.

I'm assuming this is already in reference to, "PI should cost money" 
instead of "PI shouldn't be available, period"...

Larger end-sites already have 10-20k+ annual budget (most have much, 
much larger than that): caused by CAPEX by getting at least two 
routers, OPEX by paying to multiple ISPs for fibers, transit, etc. and 
salaries of network engineering staff.

AFAICS, whether or not a PI space would cost 0, 1000 or 5000 USD a 
year is NOT a barrier for entry.  It's just *one* metric (you may be 
able to think of technical metrics that could imply the same, I can't) 
to say, "if you REALLY don't need this, it'd be nice if you seriously 
consider PA address space".

> Don't want PI: propose a feasible alternative that provides the same
> functionality under the current routing system, while looking for a better
> system

Use PA addresses and Unique Local Addresses if you really think you 
need them.  Push for shim6.  Put some work on solving the remaining 
problems if there really are any that aren't caused by the desire to 
graze the commons for free.

Maybe I should have snipped this quote, as this seems like a rathole 
which isn't worth exploring (again) here...

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings