Mikael, On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@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