[address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)

Gert Doering wrote:
> If we make PI cost a "reasonable" price (like "extra-small LIR") per
> year, this will not hinder networks that "must have" PI very much - and
> those that find PI a nice and cheap convenience might reconsider.

In this case, at first you are going to kill a small and extra-small
business (I believe, it is *only* real target for those who speaks
againist PI - to simplify competition for themselves) as well as
non-commertial and educational requesters.

Second, "PI vs LIR" deal. If one real wants own IP/AS, and ready to pay
for it, this one WILL add a prefix to the global routing table, either
he become a LIR or only get PI. BUT. If costs are equal, EVERY manager
(who make final decision for what to pay) will take MORE "something" (IP
addresses in this case) for same (or near) price. And no technician can
argue with that. So instead of PI /24 they really need, they get a LIR
with at least /21 they really don't need in any case. And we loose in
conservation of address space in 8 times (not winning in aggregation any
percent)!!!

-- 
WBR,
Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO)