This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jørgen Hovland
jorgen at hovland.cx
Thu Apr 20 23:31:37 CEST 2006
-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Pekka Savola Hello, A few words. > The upper limit is around the number of AS numbers, and if it's > expanded to 32 bits, at least I start to feel uncomforable... "Umm.. > are we sure 64K folks playing around at DFZ isn't enough??? we want 4B > instead...????" The upper limit is infinite. There is no requirement to first request an AS number to get a PI prefix (in this region) or to even use the AS. > Remember, it's easy and cheap to have a multihoming setup with two DSL > lines... It is cheaper to get redundancy than multihoming which is more or less the same thing. But they want multihoming, okay. > Come on, arguing that 1K or even 5K is an "excessive fee" for PI > prefixes in the context of reliable multihoming setup and services > provided seems a bit absurd. I'd agree that if the charge was 100K > per year, this could be considered locking out smaller competitors, > but (say) 1K is nothing -- that's less than 100 bucks a month! I think the fee should be the same as a normal LIR. I see no reason not to. Ah ok. Let's decrease it by €25 due to database storage and processing applications when the AW is not large enough. > You might even consider a payment like 1K or 2K fair: small ISPs which > get exactly the same resources have to pay such in their membership > fees. Obviously the end-sites should pay at least the same if they > consume the same resources.. Agreed. And the size of the prefix shouldn't matter as long as it is higher than the recommended(?) /48 filter limit. Complicated policies are a pain and makes people ignore/forget/misunderstand them. Yes it will potentially create a trillion prefixes in the table, but you are free to ignore them should someone carve their /19 into /48s - just like you are with IPv4 today. j
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]