[136486] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Randy Carpenter)
Thu Feb 3 10:58:15 2011
X-RC-FROM: <rcarpen@network1.net>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 10:37:08 -0500 (EST)
From: Randy Carpenter <rcarpen@network1.net>
To: Chris Owen <owenc@hubris.net>
In-Reply-To: <0336232C-B037-4AFF-A91A-71FFAE2DDEF4@hubris.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
----- Original Message -----
> On Feb 3, 2011, at 9:00 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
>
> > The concept of v4 to v6 addressing scale doesn't match the pricing
> > scale, though. Generally, I expect to see most ISPs find themselves
> > 1 rank higher in the v6 model compared to v4, which effectively
> > doubles your price anyways. :)
>
> Not sure I understand that one.
>
> /19 = 500 /29s
>
> /32 = 64,000 /48s
>
> Shouldn't the v6 blocks be a lot bigger?
>
> Chris
Yes, they should be. Someone with a /19 would likely be looking at larger than a /32. Under proposal 121, it would be a /28, which would double the fee. I would imagine that the fee structure would have to change somehow, since /31 and /30, for example, won't even be an option.
-Randy
