Am 08.07.2010 18:22, schrieb Gert Doering:
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 04:58:00PM +0100, Andy Davidson wrote:
The spirit of the proposal appears to be to conserve v4 addressing, to assist with v6 adoption. Fine. But, what about for multihomed end sites that do not need a /22, or have ncc memebrship budget ? What's the *real* difference between an LIR with one end user (their own infrastructure), and a non-LIR with PI ? Other than ?1,300 a year...
The $1300 won't matter anymore very soon. People will be willing to pay much more to get a handful of /24.
Well, the basic question is "what do we want to do with the last /8"?
So far, the only proposal that had any chance of coming near consensus was "chop it in small pieces, give every existing and possible future LIR a *single* piece, and nothing more, ever".
The intent is "those that roll out new networks will use IPv6, but are likely to need a few addresses for their translation services" - and since it's very hard to formulate RS-applicable criteria for that, simplicity is our friend here: "a single chunk, done".
Let's not forget that IPv4 is running out. So a debate about IPv4 PI space from the last /8 is somewhat moot - basing business decisions on the availability of IPv4 address space is a very very bad idea.
It should contain a statement about PI space nevertheless, something like "once the first block of last /8 is given out, only /24 PI blocks are given out from the remaining PI aggregation, as long as available". My $0.02 F.