On Feb 3, 2011, at 8:39 AM, Randy Carpenter 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. :) >>> >>> >>> Jack >> >> Actually, so far, most ISPs are finding themselves one rank lower. >> >> The exception is particularly small providers and there is a >> combination of suggestion (about fees) and policy (Proposal 121) >> effort underway to rectify that problem. >> >> Owen > > A specific example of the sizes of ISP I am working with: > > Most of them have between a /17 and a /20 of address space. > > If (hopefully when) Proposal 121 is adopted, all of the ones that are around > a /17, should be getting a /28. Some of the ones that are /19 currently, > would be getting a /28. While I wholeheartedly agree with Proposal 121, that > represents 2 jumps in cost. These might represent some unusual situations, > and might even fall under your definition of "particularly small." I hope > that if Proposal 121 does pass, that the fees are restructured so that /36, > /32, /28, /24, and /20 have different fees that line up with X-small, Small, > Medium, Large, and X-large, respectively. > > -Randy
Randy, Without proposal 121, they would fall into the /32 category and would be in the same pricing category as they are today. I realize that if they get their maximum allowed allocation under proposal 121, they would be facing significant cost increases and I do sincerely hope that the board will address this issue promptly in the process of implementing 121 when it passes. However, my comment was targeted at the current situation pre-121. In the current situation, the only providers that pay more are those with less than a /20 who cannot get less than a /32 in IPv6. They are forced from the $1250 tier to the $2,250 pricing tier. Everyone else pays either the same or less under current policy. Owen
