[address-policy-wg] getting second IPv6 PA as a LIR

> If it does, then they should look into other solutions such as renumbering
> each time they switch upstream provider instead of externalising the cost to
> the rest of the world.
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_cost#Externalities>
Thank you for your link, I appreciate your help in this issue...

> You're seriously saying 2EUR per year per customer (1000 customers) breaks
> their back?
Try to explain it to them. You don't understand that few thousands of
ISPs are using PI IPv4 and your policy limitation will not change
their behaviour.
You had to forbid PI IPv4 to end-users in the past, but not to make
some prohibitions in the IPv6 policy.

Regarding filtering IPv6 prefixes I agree with Daniel Suchy, I think
there will be a lot of people (let's say 99% ?:-)) who will not do it.

best regards,
Alex Vishnyakov


On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike at swm.pp.se> wrote:
> On Tue, 3 May 2011, Alex Vishnyakov wrote:
>
>> It's your mistake that you don't care, because it's not just my issue - I
>> can bring here to this discussion more then 1000 ISPs from Russia and
>> Ukraine, who are using PIs IPv4 now and want to move to IPv6 technology, but
>> cannot, because of the policy and people like you, and then it will become
>> very quickly a global issue. Or 1000 of ISPs is still a small number for you
>> ? It's more than million potential IPv6 users, content servers etc.
>
> You're seriously saying 2EUR per year per customer (1000 customers) breaks
> their back?
>
> If it does, then they should look into other solutions such as renumbering
> each time they switch upstream provider instead of externalising the cost to
> the rest of the world.
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_cost#Externalities>
>
> --
> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike at swm.pp.se
>