[address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)

On Fri, 15 Apr 2011, Emilio Madaio wrote:

> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to 
> <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> before 13 May 2011.

In reading this proposal, I note that the "opposing"-section contains text 
that opposes the opposing argument.

I also feel the opposing text is biased. Generally us ISPs are not worried 
about RIB capacity, we're worried about FIB capacity. Every PI network 
carries a global cost because of a DFZ slot that all DFZ routers need to 
carry.

Nonetheless, the important factor for me is: Will it cost the same amount 
of money per year? This is "tragedy of the commons" problem, so as long as 
the cost for holding the PI resource is the same before and after this 
proposal, I don't have any problems with it.

If it's all of a sudden a lot cheaper, I oppose the change.

Rationale:

If someone is willing to spend a substantial amount of money per year to 
hold a PI, they have a real business need and are willing to back this 
with cash because it's still cheaper for them. If they don't, then please 
stop using DFZ resources for no real need.

The policy should reflect this fact. If it does after the proposed change, 
I'm all for it.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike at swm.pp.se