On 8/10/07, Alan Levin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi McTim, > > > First you want lower costs for LIRs, then you want freebies for an > > undefined > > number of networks. I would suggest that you can't have lower RIR > > fees if you give away resources without compensating the RIR for > > the manpower involved. > > The one has nothing to do with the other. >
not sure I buy this. > A few points to consider: > > - my proposal request for IPv6 allocations for community networks, > was to be considered part of the training/education and/or marketing > 'line items' in the budget - from my experience this cost will be > less than a single training session for which many are planned every > year > First of all what size "allocation" do you want them to get? according to "IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites" They would get an "assignment" of a /48. Is this what you are after? > - AfriNIC has a surplus every year which has been put into a > 'reserves' fund. I believe that reserves fund should be reaching an > acceptable level soon and I will advocate spending that money on > impacting growth of Internet usage in Africa. To me that means > supporting educational and awareness campaigns such as proposed > Reserves are a good thing. IIRC, ISOC still does some funding of AfriNIC. I don't think we can count on that forever. > - Separate from the community networks proposal I'm still advocating > lower prices for small and micro ISPs. Lower than the "Very Small" category on http://www.afrinic.net/docs/billing/afcorp-fee200703.htm? Just as SMMEs drive economic > growth, so small ISPs drive growth of Internet usage in Africa. I > believe this will positively impact the AfriNIC revenues as it > allows ISPs that would not consider become LIRs to become ones (and > hence it's increasing the pie, rather than decreasing the revenue or > profits). BTW, from what I can see in RIPE, and other RIRs, drops in > prices and not resulted in lower profitability or revenues! I agree that more LIRs is a good goal, as is lowering fees. I think these are long term objectives though. > > > On 8/8/07, Alan Levin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I believe that community networks often use many gateways and > >> upstreams. It wouldn't make sense to use an assignment from one. > > > > Not from one, but from many. Lots of folk multihome using multiple > > ranges. > > Interesting. So how does this work practically? With NATs? > No NATs needed. The point of having an assignment is to use public addresses. In the spirit of "a picture is worth a thousand words", I have attached a slide from an old RIPE training course that shows graphically how this can be done. Apologies for the proprietary format. > > They don't need PI IMHO, and I don't think they should get it for > > free. > > Ok, so do you think they should pay standard rates? (What I am saying > is that will basically exclude them from getting any) It's up to them, they can become an LIR, get an assignment form an LIR or becom End-Users. I just don't think we as the community should give freebies to an undefined group of organisations. <snip> > > > Third, can you define a community network? I give free WiFi to my > > neighbors, does this mean I get an ASN and a PI block? > > If you meet the IPv6 and ASN criteria then yes (i.e. you will need to > have a sufficient number of neighbours like the guys in Scarborough > who connected up the whole village and now have more than 100 > neighbours on their network.) ok, then what is sufficient number? > > >>> 3) How many hosts does the WUG network run? > >> <snip> > > > If we want a strong, useful RIR, folk have to pay for it. > > Yes. If the big ISPs/networks in Africa were embracing IPv6 I would > say that we don't need this. If they did less NATs and more v6 > training / support / R&D I would agree that the idea of sponsoring > community networks has less weight, but these big networks don't see > the need. Most have more than enough v4 space to outlast the RIRs.. > so they care less... I'm not sure this is the case. > > > It was always going to be more expensive to start an RIR. Using the > > resources of an established RIR allowed the costs to be spread over a > > much wider LIR base. > > We should have lower costs and sufficient economies of scale to be > able to offer similar pricing. Keep in mind that the price for x- > large members is the same (assuming they pay in time) as ARINs, > whereas there is no micro category in AfriNIC. If we want to see > growth in AfriNIC revenues X-Large AfriNIC members - who pay vastly > cheaper prices per /24 - in Africa should be paying more whereas > smaller ones should be paying less. > If you want to see a micro (smaller than Very Small) then propose that. Keep in mind the minimum allocation size(s) though. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
Multihoming with PA Addresses.ppt
Description: MS-Powerpoint presentation
_______________________________________________ rpd mailing list [email protected] https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
