[136547] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Feb 3 13:39:01 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <1344594475.2126.1296751198990.JavaMail.root@zimbra.network1.net>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 10:29:56 -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 8:39 AM, Randy Carpenter 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. :)
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> Jack
>>=20
>> Actually, so far, most ISPs are finding themselves one rank lower.
>>=20
>> The exception is particularly small providers and there is a
>> combination of suggestion (about fees) and policy (Proposal 121)
>> effort underway to rectify that problem.
>>=20
>> Owen
>=20
> A specific example of the sizes of ISP I am working with:
>=20
> Most of them have between a /17 and a /20 of address space.
>=20
> If (hopefully when) Proposal 121 is adopted, all of the ones that are =
around a /17, should be getting a /28. Some of the ones that are /19 =
currently, would be getting a /28. While I wholeheartedly agree with =
Proposal 121, that represents 2 jumps in cost. These might represent =
some unusual situations, and might even fall under your definition of =
"particularly small." I hope that if Proposal 121 does pass, that the =
fees are restructured so that /36, /32, /28, /24, and /20 have different =
fees that line up with X-small, Small, Medium, Large, and X-large, =
respectively.
>=20
> -Randy
Randy,
Without proposal 121, they would fall into the /32 category and would be =
in the same pricing category as they are today.
I realize that if they get their maximum allowed allocation under =
proposal 121, they would be facing significant cost increases and I do =
sincerely hope that the board will address this issue promptly in the =
process of implementing 121 when it passes.
However, my comment was targeted at the current situation pre-121. In =
the current situation, the only providers that pay more are those with =
less than a /20 who cannot get less than a /32 in IPv6. They are forced =
from the $1250 tier to the $2,250 pricing tier. Everyone else pays =
either the same or less under current policy.
Owen
