[arin-ppml] IPv6 /32 minimum for extra-small ISP
ggiesen at akn.ca
Mon Apr 26 01:55:01 EDT 2010
I think what he's trying to say is that cost is an issue *because* the
business doesn't hang in the balance, and therefore the current pricing is
an impediment to adoption. I don't really agree, because for all but the
tiniest ISPs, $2250 is a tiny amount of their operating budget, and the cost
of a couple decent CPE routers.
On 10-04-26 1:44 AM, "Christopher Morrow" <christopher.morrow at gmail.com>
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 1:40 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Christopher Morrow
>> <christopher.morrow at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 6:19 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 6:06 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>>>>> Only the generality was
>>>>> important to Ted's reminder that when providing ARIN allocations to
>>>>> ISPs that find $2250/year challenging, "you consume the same amount of
>>> Is 2250/year really that much of an expense that a business hangs in
>>> the balance?
>> It's IPv6 and it's the year 2010. The business doesn't hang in the
>> balance. Maybe next year. Maybe the year after. Maybe.
> meaning that today the cost isn't an issue, but because of business
> pressures 2250 could be a problem in the future? Or, did you mean
> that in the future the RIR may decide to charge 10x/20x/100x for the
> same allocation?
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML