Keith Moore wrote: > > > > > > So, as I wrote in this forum about a week ago, what I'd like > > > to see in that area is simply provider independant, registry > > > allocated, easy accessible (very low registry fees, no question > > > asked) public address space, and then forget about the "scope" > > > discussion which is an operational/business issue.
Actually I agree with this, but as we've seen (e.g. Geoff Huston's comments) setting this up will take time and debate, whereas the locally-assigned algorithm works instantly. True, it generates operationally untraceable prefixes if they leak, but surely that only hurts ISPs who don't filter properly. > > > > I almost agree, except that I would insist on "no cost". > > Low cost is often impossible, since that even a base charge > > for $0.50 requires invoicing across several continents and > > purchasing departments and levels of approval. > > are you saying that the process for obtaining a domain name is already > too onerous? seems like this should be an upper bound on the effort > required to get a PI prefix. True enough. But 10 EUR is a disincentive to hoarding or DoS, whereas $0.00 would not be. Brian - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Brian E Carpenter Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM NEW ADDRESS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PLEASE UPDATE ADDRESS BOOK -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
