[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 22 Mar 2010 21:57, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Mar 22, 2010, at 5:41 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>>> Here, I must disagree. A liberalized PI policy would serve those smaller more innovative enterprises at least as well as ULA-C, if not better.  Especially if it provided for an equal ability to get "tainted" addresses on request.
>> If "tainted" address space is $10, then great.
>>     
> It won't be $10. It shouldn't be $10. It shouldn't be a whole lot more than that. I'm thinking on the order of $50/year, tainted or otherwise.
>   

GUAs currently cost $100/yr for end-user assignments, after the initial
fee.  I don't see a meaningful difference between $50/yr and $100/yr,
especially when any organization with a legitimate reason to use ULA-C
space (rather than ULA-R space) would see either as no more than a
rounding error in their budget.

If we liberalized the GUA policy (which would be tough, since it's
already ridiculously easy to qualify for), the Board might lower the
initial assignment fee because less work would need to be done.  Still,
I think the current fee for a /48 is reasonable and provides a valuable
deterrent to using GUAs when ULA-R would work just fine.  Viewed in that
light, I see no reason for it to be lower for ULA-C than for GUAs, and
therefore no reason for ULA-C to exist at all.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3646 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20100323/82fa0481/attachment.p7s>