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

Hello!

On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 03:34:58PM +0000, Max Tulyev 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)!!!


Max, how say that fees will be equal? As for me, PI/24+ASN should have
yearly fee acceptable for most small companies. If they really need it,
they will pay for it. Once payments stoped - resources returned and
ready to reassignment.


-- 
Dmitry Kiselev