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

Mikael,

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike at swm.pp.se> wrote:
> On Tue, 3 May 2011, Richard Hartmann wrote:
>
>> Maybe more people would agree with you if you wouldn't use ridiculously
>> inflated numbers, both for the projected PI prefixes and your desired price
>> of € 2000 / year * PI prefix. Or tried to write your emails in a slightly
>> less heated manner.
>
> I am not stupid, I of course know RIPE is never going to charge 2kEUR per
> year for PI even if I want them to.
>
> Also, I am going to save this email and bring it out in 5 years and let's
> see how many 50EUR/year PIs there are in the world then. I guess that's the
> only way to find out.
>
> I am not heated, I am resigned about nobody here caring about the common
> good. Seems shared cost is "someone elses problem". As long as "my hobby
> project" is important to me, I should get to pollute without paying.
>
> And at 50EUR per year, heck, I'd PI my home connection in a blink. Why
> wouldn't anyone?

Why don't you? :)

I'll just re-iterate an earlier point I made in this thread:
If a routing protocol can't scale in the core, it's either applied
wrong or there is a problem with the protocol design itself.

I don't think taxing people away is a good sustainable/stable approach
to solving the problem of the routing protocol in question.

In the context of a potential (not certain) explosion of *both* IPv4
and IPv6 prefixes in the BGP DFZ's, LISP or other specific solutions
to the expensive core *may* become necessary.  My view is that *if*
this explosion comes, it does so fully regardless of RIPE's PI/PA IPv6
policies.

Regards,
Martin