Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses

Owen DeLong owen at
Mon Nov 1 22:03:14 CDT 2010

On Nov 1, 2010, at 4:19 PM, Karl Auer wrote:

> On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 15:26 -0700, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
>> Karl Auer wrote:
>>> That was with the waivers in force. It will soon cost a one-time US
>>> $1250. We could argue till the cows come home about what proportion of
>>> the population would consider that "prohibitive" but I'm guessing that
>>> even in the USA that's a heck of an entry fee, and that the vast
>>> majority of non-corporate end users will not be willing to pay it. Which
>>> is the actual point, rather than quibbling about the precise price.
>> That seems to be quite an argument against trying to get IPv6 GUA, or am 
>> I missing something?
Interesting... I guess controlling your own internet fate hasn't been a 
priority for the companies where you've worked. Not one of my clients
or the companies I have worked for has even given a second thought
to approving the cost of address space once I presented the tradeoffs
of PA vs. PI.

Depending on your meaning of non-corporate (e.g. non-business or
just not large business since this is unclear from your meaning and
corporations come in all sizes including a single person), this may
or may not be true.

> No you're not missing anything. And this is a good, simple policy tool
> to keep the numbers of PI routes down. At least from the US. But similar
> fees seem to be in force at other RIRs like APNIC and RIPE.
The fees are not there to keep routes down. The fees are there to help
the RIR recover the cost of maintaining the RIR and processing the

Frankly, if we simplified the approval process we could probably lower
the cost of reviewing these applications and thus lower the fees.


More information about the NANOG mailing list