|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 08:29:58 -0700 From: "Majdi S. Abbas" <msa@samurai.sfo.dead-dog.com> To: nanog@merit.edu In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0304132325560.8886-100000@paixhost.pch.net> Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu On Sun, Apr 13, 2003 at 11:28:08PM -0700, Bill Woodcock wrote: > That's actually a really good question, and one you should do some > thinking about, and talk with people about, before it starts coming time > to make policy decisions. > > When the day arrives when people don't want new IPv4 addresses, or there > aren't any to be had, and everybody who needs v6 addresses has them, how > is the registry going to be paid for? How is a commercial, for profit service, like, say, an ISP expected to justify spending thousands upon thousands to 'lease' IPv6 space that their customers (in most cases, at least in the US) won't pay them anything additional to use? When everyone's cutting costs, in many cases simply to survive in this market... why are they expected to fund a registry's operations? Charging for v6 allocations may make sense...in a few years. We're not there yet. And I doubt that v4 will cease being a moneymaker any time soon. --msa
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |