| | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
You're here: Home |
On 20 Apr, 2006, at 16:18, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Scott Leibrand wrote:1. Each assignment must be accompanied by a recurring fee (at least1000-2000 USD/EUR a year, preferably 5000+). This is peanuts (compared to other costs) to anyone who actually needs this multihoming solution. However, this ensures at least some minimum usage barrier ("those who don't really need this can use different multihoming solutions"), and recovery of the resources back to RIRafter the company has gone bankrupt or no longer needs the addresses.If you don't know where to put the extra money, donate it to ISOC or something.As has been discussed at ARIN, this is a good way to get the government to declare the RIR a monopoly engaging in anticompetitive behavior. I forone don't want that.
Pekka, this doesn't sound like the right way to do policy, and yes, things that smell like "big guys get it, small guys don't" will be looked at suspiciously and rightly so.
Criteria ought to be of a technical nature.Don't want PI: propose a feasible alternative that provides the same functionality under the current routing system, while looking for a better system.
RIRs run on non-profit principle, but nothing precludes them from increasing the expenses, e.g., for donations to make the internet a better place, setting a foundation for multihoming research to actually SOLVE this problem, etc.etc.
Now, *this* I do like a lot. RIRs sponsoring some research into something that directly affects the business they are chartered to do sounds right. It is one step further than the reporting pointing at the problem that Geoff is already doing at APNIC.
Joao Damas ISC
