Hello! On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 03:34:58PM +0000, Max Tulyev wrote:
If we make PI cost a "reasonable" price (like "extra-small LIR") per year, this will not hinder networks that "must have" PI very much - and those that find PI a nice and cheap convenience might reconsider.
In this case, at first you are going to kill a small and extra-small business (I believe, it is *only* real target for those who speaks againist PI - to simplify competition for themselves) as well as non-commertial and educational requesters.
Second, "PI vs LIR" deal. If one real wants own IP/AS, and ready to pay for it, this one WILL add a prefix to the global routing table, either he become a LIR or only get PI. BUT. If costs are equal, EVERY manager (who make final decision for what to pay) will take MORE "something" (IP addresses in this case) for same (or near) price. And no technician can argue with that. So instead of PI /24 they really need, they get a LIR with at least /21 they really don't need in any case. And we loose in conservation of address space in 8 times (not winning in aggregation any percent)!!!
Max, how say that fees will be equal? As for me, PI/24+ASN should have yearly fee acceptable for most small companies. If they really need it, they will pay for it. Once payments stoped - resources returned and ready to reassignment. -- Dmitry Kiselev