owen at delong.com
Thu Feb 3 10:24:34 CST 2011
On Feb 3, 2011, at 7:37 AM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
> ----- 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.
I fully expect that if proposal 121 is adopted (and I very much hope it will be), the board will make appropriate changes to the fee structure. It is also important to note that while 121 sets liberal maximum allocation sizes, it does not require providers to request or accept maximum allocations. A provider that qualifies for a /28 can request and get a /32 or even a /36 if they really want.
So far, there has been good support for it, but if you are interested, please get on PPML and express your opinion.
More information about the NANOG