Re: [v6ops] [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-icp-guidance-03.txt]

[Tore Anderson <[e-mail]>]

* Brian E Carpenter

>> «This option is available to an ICP willing to deal directly with the
>> relevant Regional Internet Registry and pay the associated fees»
>>
>> This is misleading, at least in the RIPE NCC service area. 
> 
> Ah, OK, would it be accurate to simply delete the word "Regional"?

Strictly speaking, I suppose so. But the message is still a bit
confusing. The «willing to deal directly with» formulation is in all
likelihood a red herring, because the ICP will be already dealing
directly with an LIR - his ISP. And which ICP would care about €50/year?

The document continues in the same vein: «only large content providers
can justify the bother and expense of obtaining a PI prefix». Can't say
I agree. The bother and expense is for all practical purposes
negligible, especially when compared to the potential bother and expense
associated with renumbering out of a PA assignment down the road.

It is probably a bigger hurdle for the ICP (compared to getting a PA
assignment from an ISP) to acquire and set up BGP-speaking routers.
However, it is also possible to have the upstream ISP(s) advertise the
PI prefix on the ICP's behalf, so even that might not be a problem after
all.

Truth to be told I don't see any real reason why an ICP shouldn't go for
PI from day one. Except for altruism, that is.

(I'm not well informed when it comes to the other four RIRs' PI
policies, so the above might be limited only to the RIPE service area.)

Best regards,
-- 
Tore Anderson
Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/