[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


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


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.