[ppml] [address-policy-wg] Re: Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive

[Steve Feldman]

>>> Pekka, this doesn't sound like the right way to do policy, and yes,
>>> things that smell like "big guys get it, small guys don't" will be
>>> looked at suspiciously and rightly so. Criteria ought to be of a
>>> technical nature.
>>
>> I'm assuming this is already in reference to, "PI should cost money"
>> instead of "PI shouldn't be available, period"...
>>
>> Larger end-sites already have 10-20k+ annual budget (most have much,
>> much larger than that): caused by CAPEX by getting at least two
>> routers, OPEX by paying to multiple ISPs for fibers, transit, etc.  
>> and
>> salaries of network engineering staff.
>>
>
> Yes, but I know many of people (including myself and basically all of
> my clients) who
> would regard a $ 5K tax as pretty onerous.
>
> You also run the risk of giving people the feeling that the system is
> weighted towards
> the large stakeholders. Now, I do not feel that way, but I hear from
> plenty of people who do,
> and it's hard to see how they wouldn't take it this way.

It doesn't make much sense to me for an RIR to charge large fees
for v6 PI assignments, doing so is essentially behavior modification
through taxation.

On the other hand, it make perfect sense for anyone who wants their
PI space advertised to pay their upstreams for the privilege, since
there is a real cost in doing so.

Also, it's naive to think that we won't ever have to pay for another
round of router upgrades across the Internet; the only question is how
long it can be delayed.  Perhaps this time, though, it can be funded by
the providers' customers, not the stockholders and creditors.
	Steve