[87038] in North American Network Operators' Group
AW: BGP Security and PKI Hierarchies
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John van Oppen)
Tue Nov 29 15:34:06 2005
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 12:33:25 -0800
From: "John van Oppen" <john@vanoppen.com>
To: "Joe Abley" <jabley@isc.org>,
"David Barak" <thegameiam@yahoo.com>
Cc: <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
While I think $1250/year for a /24 of space seems a bit high, I see no =
reason that legacy allocations should remain free. Perhaps $100/year =
(like an ASN is) would be reasonable for small legacy allocations. =
This is especially important for end users who have these allocations as =
they would most likely be free from their upstream provider.
That being said, if it is larger than a few /24s I see no reason to not =
have the regular rates apply. If you have a /16 and can't afford the =
fee, you can't possibly afford to fill it with machines and should =
simply be allowed to swap down to a smaller allocation. Such a scheme =
would be in the best interest of all as it would all for some =
reclamation of numbering resources.
Charging something also seems as though it would help with the IP =
hording problem that is going on with legacy allocations. It would =
also help to "automatically" expire allocations which are not in use as =
users would be less willing to pay for resources they are not using.
John :)
-----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Joe Abley [mailto:jabley@isc.org]=20
Gesendet: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 11:20 AM
An: David Barak
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Betreff: Re: BGP Security and PKI Hierarchies
On 29-Nov-2005, at 12:16, David Barak wrote:
> Maybe my imagination just isn't good enough: could you
> toss me an example-type of organization where that
> would be problematic?
Oh, my mistake -- you're talking about new organisations looking to =20
acquire PI space. I was talking about organisations who have =20
grandfathered (and hence zero-fee) PI space.
I don't have any examples of the former, and I tend to agree with =20
your assessment for that.
Joe