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

* Mikael Abrahamsson:

> I don't want the money, I just want there to be *substantial cost* to
> take up a DFZ slot.

And degrade overall routing quality because networks cannot afford
announcing shorter paths?  I don't think this is a good idea.

> Preferrably it should be paid per slot as well, so people
> de-aggregating their blocks have to pay more, but I don't know any way
> to do that.

Currently, the policy documents spell out clearly that a prefix
assignment is not a guarantuee that the prefix will show up in the
DFZ.  Neither the RIPE community nor the RIPE NCC control the DFZ, so
I'm not sure how to change this, and getting some control seems to be
a necessary first step before charging for DFZ slots (that is, make
sure that you can actually deliver the product you're trying to sell).

-- 
Florian Weimer                <fweimer at bfk.de>
BFK edv-consulting GmbH       http://www.bfk.de/
Kriegsstraße 100              tel: +49-721-96201-1
D-76133 Karlsruhe             fax: +49-721-96201-99