[address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it lessdestructive
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it lessdestructive
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it lessdestructive
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Florian Weimer
fw at deneb.enyo.de
Mon May 8 07:28:23 CEST 2006
* Gert Doering: > Which is touching the core of the problem: > > "can we agree upon who should be allowed to put a route into my routers"? Ideally, that would be someone who pays for this kind of service. The fewer prefixes there are, the more feasible this approach will be. 8-) > LIRs seem to be a good choice, because many (most?) of them *do* allocate > for third parties (which is a good thing for global aggregation) - and > even for those that don't, the fact that there is a recurring fee involved > shifts the balance a bit away from "PI is purely convenient for the holder > and puts the costs only on everybody else" to "a portable IP block *does* > have some costs attached". In principle, such an effect is desirable. But I would be very surprised if the majority of end users with IPv4 PI didn't pay a monthly fee for non-mass-market Internet connectivity. This means that they actually need PI, or they don't care that much because the price difference still isn't large enough. In the latter case, a rather significant fee is needed to turn global inconvenience into a local one.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it lessdestructive
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it lessdestructive
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]