| | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
You're here: Home |
> If you point out that proposal itself, my answer will be > because "100% discount of PAF for all allocations" will be > simpler than "90% discount of PAF only for IPv4 infrastructure > based evaluation". > > If you point out the long-term NIR fee change, it is not a > small amount and PAF no longer fits - for example a *single* > /21 IPv6 allocation introduced us PAF of USD64K where JPNIC's > total annual payment for APNIC was approx USD200K. This is > a huge difference either in case PAF would be born by the LIR > or by the NIR. PAF used to be modest enough to be fit. but > it isn't any longer. > > Am I answering? yes, at last! so the 'complexity' is really the size of the number, not that the rirs can not calculate a simple step function. while i suspect i could sympathize with the costs when looked at as absolute bhat/dollar/dong/yen amounts, US$64k ain't bad for more address space than all of ipv4. especially as i suspect an ipv4 /16 will be going for upwards of US$1m in a few years. but now that we're down to the money, what do you think a reasonable curve, or step function, would be? it sounds as if stephan (and others from whom i have email) are concerned about how it goes forward. so discussing a replacement proposal may help alleviate some of the disagreement. then again, it may not; some of us are just disagreeable :-). randy
