Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal

[Nico Schottelius <[e-mail]>]

David Farmer <[e-mail]> writes:

> On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 10:15 AM Nico Schottelius <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> writes:
>>
>> > ... Also
>> > I think there are some tough questions that may need to be resolved
>> > around points of contact and relevant laws.  These are things that
>> > both ICANN and the various RIRs have paid considerable attention to.
>>
>> They did and they do. However I think the focus has never been on
>> enabling (non-profit) commmunities. I am emphasising on this as
>> historically when people can spend time (but not money) on something,
>> innovation happens. We have not yet addressed this problem properly in
>> the IPv6 world.
>>
>
> The ARIN community has put significant effort into reducing the barriers as
> low as possible, for IPv6 allocations, all barriers can't be eliminated.
> However, the entry point has been lowered to $250 for a /40 IPv6
> allocation, intended for the smallest ISP-like organization, an LIR,
> that is an organization that makes assignments to other end-uerser.

I believe $250/y is quite a good price tag, indeed. As you mention, it
is still not fully inclusive, but I understand the reasoning to at least
cover the costs from ARIN side.

Given that all RIRs would offer /40's (I'd even go as small as /48 per
party) at cost price, this would be a good start.

In that case access to IPv6 addresses could be based on a
sponsorship / donation model, buy-2-sponsor-1, and/or cross financed by
bigger LIRs (for every /32 you sponsor access to 1 /40).

I agree with the previously discussed argument "space should not be
free" to prevent abuse, but I'd still envision a "pay by time / work"
method, because that resource is usually abundant in non-profits.

Best regards,

Nico

--
Sustainable and modern Infrastructures by ungleich.ch