On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 03:47:50PM -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > There is no reason to think that the RIRs' cost of registering and managing > a /48 in fc00::/8 will be any less than the cost of registering and > managing a /48 in 2000::/3. Since all of the RIRs operate on a > cost-recovery basis, that means the fees should be the same. Ergo, ULA-C > will not be any cheaper under the currently proposed model.
yes, and? shouldn't that encourage people to get space allocated out of the block (2000::/3, FC00::/8) that best suits them? they could request/register out of both if they have a use for both. several cases have been made on this list that people would have dissimilar uses for both. what is the problem with allocating people what they want? the RIRs can set their fee schedule as needed. that's not this WG's worry. if i pay to have a ULA-[CG] block allocated/registered to me, i should know that i'm not going to be able to sucessfully announce it to the DFZ. the RIRs tend to do a good enough job explaining the difference between the different types of address space available. given enough direction and information from the documents produced here, i think we can depend on RIRs to do the right thing. -- bill -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
