[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks

[Owen DeLong]

On Mar 23, 2010, at 9:10 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

> 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.
> 
There is a group of people who believe having tainted addresses that
are guaranteed unique is valuable. I don't agree with them, but, I can't
deny that they exist and do not feel I should tell them their opinion is
not valid. As such, I would rather see us implement a one-policy, one-
price strategy for both tainted and non-tainted addresses and have
the RIRs issuing both types than have some other system outside of
the RIRs develop for the administration of tainted addresses.

The former will keep policy consistent. The latter will lead to an
incentive to use "tainted" addresses in an "untainted" context which
will blur the definitions over time and eventually become an end-run
on RIR policy.

Owen