rcarpen at network1.net
Thu Feb 3 09:37:08 CST 2011
----- Original Message -----
> On Feb 3, 2011, at 9:00 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
> > The concept of v4 to v6 addressing scale doesn't match the pricing
> > scale, though. Generally, I expect to see most ISPs find themselves
> > 1 rank higher in the v6 model compared to v4, which effectively
> > doubles your price anyways. :)
> Not sure I understand that one.
> /19 = 500 /29s
> /32 = 64,000 /48s
> Shouldn't the v6 blocks be a lot bigger?
Yes, they should be. Someone with a /19 would likely be looking at larger than a /32. Under proposal 121, it would be a /28, which would double the fee. I would imagine that the fee structure would have to change somehow, since /31 and /30, for example, won't even be an option.
More information about the NANOG