On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 10:03 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:
At 19:01 08/05/2006, Sascha Luck wrote:
An arbitrary fee, specifically designed to block someone's entry into *any* market, is *illegal*, at least in any non-communist country that I know.
[...] Folks are going to come to terms with the fact that the v6 routing table is going to have large numbers of entries.
IPv6 will be much better aggregated than ipv4, because the allocation blocks are larger, and the requirement for LIRs to request multiple non-contiguous blocks of space will be much lower. This necessarily means that ipv6 table growth is going to be lesser than the ipv4 table growth, which has also lagged behind hardware speed increases. What's the problem here?? As regards cost, PI space requires RIR administration, and that costs money. Additionally, there needs to be a means for RIRs to legitimately reclaim PI space. Charging a fee appears to be good way of dealing with both problems. It doesn't need to be a huge amount of money, but money needs to be involved. I would like to suggest that after initial liaison with the local LIR, that the end-user relationship would then revert to the RIR. The RIR would then be responsible for charging the end-user, and the LIR would be removed from the equation. This will require time and resources to set up, and that means that charging a fee will be completely justified. This will fix two things which completely fail to make sense about the current RIPE (ipv4) assignment policy: 1. there is no default means of returning PI space to the RIR if the end-user disappears 2. the LIR is effectively charged for the assignment, even if the end-user moves to another LIR's domain. Problem #1 is a really serious issue and needs to be tackled urgently. Nick