Re: [ppml] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive

> 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 of NANP is 10,000,000,000 telephone numbers.  Do you
think that the SS7 infrastructure and/or the switching infrastructure
could actually handle that many end-subscribers?

Let's look at this realistically.  If you get 10x expansion in ASN
consumption, you still have a smaller v6 table than the current
v4 table.  At 20x, you start to approach parity.  At 50x, you might
actually start to hit some limits on current router hardware.

Do you really expect 50x current ASNs to be active in the next
10 years?  Does that really seem like a realistic growth rate?
How about in 20 years?  Even there, I don't think so.
In 20 years, I'm betting the face of how we do routing will either
substantially change, or, routers will have scaled a whole lot
more than current capabilities.

> Remember, it's easy and cheap to have a multihoming setup with two DSL
> lines...
>
It's not so easy and cheap to do it in such a way that your provider
will accept your routes and that you can peer meaningfully with
multiple providers.


> 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!
>
You can't have it both ways.  Either it requires substantial
capex to set up multihoming and the high fees don't matter, or,
it's cheap and easy to do with two DSL lines and requires
very little capex so the fees would be potentially discriminatory
(whether excessive or not is irrelevant.  If they are discriminatory
and provide a business advantage to larger businesses over smaller
ones, then, that is restraint of trade)

> 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..
>
The current ISP fee for a v6 allocation is $0. If ARIN were to rescind
the fee waiver, it would be $1,250 for a /40 or less, and $2,250
for a /32-/41 (not sure what happens at /40 and /41.

At the ARIN members meeting, it was presented that these fees would
also apply (as would the waiver) to PI assignments of the same size,
so, you have your fee wish already.

Owen

-- 
If this message was not signed with gpg key 0FE2AA3D, it's probably
a forgery.

_______________________________________________
global-v6 mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFESKR9n5zKWQ/iqj0RAhR0AKCAvfFgUsC641HT8hvOd4O+bAOM+wCfXem0
P//8WWJSGg/by6jey4l50TY=
=xU7b
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----