[address-policy-wg] Concerns on policy proposal 2005-08

Hi Leo,

See below, in-line.

Regards,
Jordi




> De: Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda at icann.org>
> Responder a: <address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net>
> Fecha: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 10:29:27 +0100
> Para: <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
> CC: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] Concerns on policy proposal 2005-08
> 
> Hi Jordi,
> 
> On Jan 26, 2007, at 10:04 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> 
>> Hi Leo,
>> 
>> Yes, good point, that's the idea.
> 
> Are you trying to limit the commercial freedom of ISPs to offer a

Not at all

> range of products based around different sized networks? I remember

What I recall is that address space is not a good to be sold by the LIRs,
and they don't own it. Only the real cost for the "management" should be
charged, and I can tell you for sure that this is not in the order of 12
Euros per month per IPv4 address as it is being charged in Spain (I guess
about the same in other countries).

So the real situation with IPv4 is that this is not the case. Many ISPs
actually "sell" the addresses.

We need to understand that if we do the same with IPv6, we in fact kill IPv6
and there is no advantage to deploy it. The possible business with IPv6 is
the fact that new services and applications can be generated and make profit
from them BECAUSE:
1) there are enough IPv6 addresses
2) its provision is easier (specially if all the end-users get the same
prefix, so network become "flat", such as /48 right now).
3) there is no NAT (which will be better avoid if we have 1 and 2 above)

Probably we can add other things to the list, but the important point is to
make sure that the addresses are there for end-users applications and
services at no cost (and I'm not talking just about money, but
"justification" cost).

> this issue being discussed in the context of IPv4 when ripe-152, the
> 'Charging by Local Internet Registries' document was reviewed a
> couple of years ago. I seem to remember several strong statements
> against RIR policy regulating business models during that discussion.
> Is this a discussion you want to re-visit?
> 
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/address-policy/r47-minutes.html (Section F)
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -- 
> Leo Vegoda
> IANA Numbers Liaison
> 
> 




**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.