Re: [v6ops] ULA draft revision #2 Regarding isolated networks

John Mann <john.mann@monash.edu> Wed, 25 June 2014 04:06 UTC

Return-Path: <john.mann@monash.edu>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 199B11B2AAC for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:06:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.878
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.878 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PJDqchF1vYcy for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:06:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na3sys009aog133.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aog133.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.82]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB5FC1B2AAA for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:06:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qa0-f46.google.com ([209.85.216.46]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob133.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKU6pK2rRuLxdL+uZFh0v26OD/JOhQO4WE@postini.com; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:06:50 PDT
Received: by mail-qa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id i13so1055155qae.5 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:06:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=/NrO6KTd+tDwpoZQRNbRqx7hjtQyhHL8T1A/zx8CvVk=; b=kvQB2S+8Gv+D1ZS0X+CA3ma6/fpFEwI/mmsihMhXlXaebz/V3T4S4xeU2q/mkFOgPg nO+vpzJ9xgrMADlmNSE74WsYlhRdN/imHG5Ii3w3gPXEdatfYaymwiKwtgz/xQfxnSaS vAFgYgdumEzRGIKW8QVWEcY1k3vhsi3KlHbkfpb//oGzKcWNxs8PoS9kMaFVerHvdFOi D9cKtheBj8k+CAKk99XBRA9/tLsnGnXGtJUvPyXNA2wpkKivUwGVoiS0otb+YqHq9NtK ghUOaiFr87tKK0gCFnJxTddMGNsRv9ey25WcVbNDwSB9McO1X9szIDT1Z7gmCQZcYe9n MPPw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlQ06eRq5vucQTTjf5z74hwhM9JusEC35w2V7BogcpR1wLGx0zOGS89PjZKNZK/ptpT3hwmfJJ/31MpX9gTywiV8cgkXsswci2bdQL0FHSaPBs4HGy86XZm5wMnO4VyHqgWsdi9
X-Received: by 10.140.37.75 with SMTP id q69mr7737254qgq.60.1403669209601; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:06:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.140.37.75 with SMTP id q69mr7737238qgq.60.1403669209499; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:06:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.51.132 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:06:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <F387EA2B-BC6C-4221-A2DD-65FC89CCB428@delong.com>
References: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B6B9A@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <m261ks7xww.wl%randy@psg.com> <53840070.90801@gmail.com> <m2y4xn7wep.wl%randy@psg.com> <53840723.8010606@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1O_poMR200sjU=ttRvGaeQRkC1ZfXC0Ok4uQxdq3K=NQ@mail.gmail.com> <m2mwe37tbn.wl%randy@psg.com> <CAKD1Yr2t3-vxuG=iDi4biBNFpJwuzuHgfpB74i_uydWWRV7qZg@mail.gmail.com> <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B6E02@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <m2fvjv7q4h.wl%randy@psg.com> <m1WpDcc-0000BMC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <43BB867C-7BCA-45F6-8ADC-A49B34D6C0DC@nominum.com> <m1WpHrp-0000BQC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <20140527221708.A980B16B8C6E@rock.dv.isc.org> <F387EA2B-BC6C-4221-A2DD-65FC89CCB428@delong.com>
From: John Mann <john.mann@monash.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:06:28 +1000
Message-ID: <CA+OBy1O_1x6xORtp+km_guHOTzsNTKU8zT5686PTMhL3oR2H+A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c1334a9d570b04fca134c8"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/4dENtZIfJeaNqY9p-xJeF_xEm5k
Cc: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3a@u-1.phicoh.com>, v6ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] ULA draft revision #2 Regarding isolated networks
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 04:06:55 -0000

Hi,

On 28 May 2014 18:16, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:

>
> On May 27, 2014, at 3:17 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > In message <m1WpHrp-0000BQC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>, Philip Homburg
> writes:
> >> In your letter dated Tue, 27 May 2014 08:52:02 -0400 you wrote:
> >>> The operational situation that's problematic is the large enterprise
> >>> scenario, where you have two large enterprises with their own ULAs that
> >>> merge.   If those ULAs happen to clash, you have to renumber at least
> >>> one of them.   If they don't clash, you still have to deal with routing
> >>> them (although I think the split-horizon complexity objection Mikael
> >>> raised ought to be thought through carefully before being asserted as
> >>> factual, because I think it can be addressed through routing and not
> >>> naming).
> >>
> >> If you are a large entrprise, just spend the 50 euro or so (RIPE
> service region) it
> >> costs to get your own prefix.
> >
> > A /56 is over AUD1180 (+10% GST) annually.  Thanks for playing.
> >
>
> Yes, APNIC now has the distinction of being the absolutely most expensive
> RIR on the planet.
>
> However, outside of the APNIC region, prices are much more reasonable.
>
> US 100 per resource (regardless of size) ARIN
> EU  50 (flat rate, regardless of resources) RIPE
> US 600 (up to a /35) LACNIC
> US 100 (per /48?) AfriNIC
>

> AU1180 (/56, logarithmic formula for larger blocks) APNIC

I think you are describing the APNIC costs poorly.

It is  AUD 1180 (up to a /34, logarithmic formula for larger blocks) APNIC

Pricing one /56

http://submit.apnic.net/cgi-bin/feecalc.pl?ipv4=&ipv6=%2F56&action=Calculate
says "= AUD 4", but the minimum annual fee is AUD 1,180  so that is the
actual fee.

Similarly, an IPv6 /48 says "= AUD 30", but the minimum annual fee is AUD
1,180  so that is the actual fee.

But a realistic situation for a SME with IPv4 and IPv6:
- an IPv4 /24 and an IPv6 /34

http://submit.apnic.net/cgi-bin/feecalc.pl?ipv4=%2F24&ipv6=%2F34&action=Calculate
Fees for each address type is AUD 1,180 ; take the maximum so the fee is
AUD 1,180

And a small ISP:
- an IPv4 /22 and/or an IPv6 /32 costs AUD 1,994


 So, it looks like at a little less than twice your next closest
> competitor, APNIC is the clear winner for the highest prices.
>

   John