[136501] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Feb 3 11:36:07 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <299860873.2074.1296747428703.JavaMail.root@zimbra.network1.net>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 08:24:34 -0800
To: Randy Carpenter <rcarpen@network1.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 3, 2011, at 7:37 AM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----
>> On Feb 3, 2011, at 9:00 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
>>=20
>>> 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. :)
>>=20
>> Not sure I understand that one.
>>=20
>> /19 =3D 500 /29s
>>=20
>> /32 =3D 64,000 /48s
>>=20
>> Shouldn't the v6 blocks be a lot bigger?
>>=20
>> Chris
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> -Randy
>=20
I fully expect that if proposal 121 is adopted (and I very much hope it =
will be), the board will make appropriate changes to the fee structure. =
It is also important to note that while 121 sets liberal maximum =
allocation sizes, it does not require providers to request or accept =
maximum allocations. A provider that qualifies for a /28 can request and =
get a /32 or even a /36 if they really want.
So far, there has been good support for it, but if you are interested, =
please get on PPML and express your opinion.
Owen
