-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Pekka Savola Hello, A few words.
The upper limit is around the number of AS numbers, and if it's expanded to 32 bits, at least I start to feel uncomforable... "Umm.. are we sure 64K folks playing around at DFZ isn't enough??? we want 4B instead...????"
The upper limit is infinite. There is no requirement to first request an AS number to get a PI prefix (in this region) or to even use the AS.
Remember, it's easy and cheap to have a multihoming setup with two DSL lines...
It is cheaper to get redundancy than multihoming which is more or less the same thing. But they want multihoming, okay.
Come on, arguing that 1K or even 5K is an "excessive fee" for PI prefixes in the context of reliable multihoming setup and services provided seems a bit absurd. I'd agree that if the charge was 100K per year, this could be considered locking out smaller competitors, but (say) 1K is nothing -- that's less than 100 bucks a month!
I think the fee should be the same as a normal LIR. I see no reason not to. Ah ok. Let's decrease it by €25 due to database storage and processing applications when the AW is not large enough.
You might even consider a payment like 1K or 2K fair: small ISPs which get exactly the same resources have to pay such in their membership fees. Obviously the end-sites should pay at least the same if they consume the same resources..
Agreed. And the size of the prefix shouldn't matter as long as it is higher than the recommended(?) /48 filter limit. Complicated policies are a pain and makes people ignore/forget/misunderstand them. Yes it will potentially create a trillion prefixes in the table, but you are free to ignore them should someone carve their /19 into /48s - just like you are with IPv4 today. j