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

Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Wed, 25 June 2014 19:50 UTC

Return-Path: <owen@delong.com>
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 C04A81B2E70 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 12:50:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.641
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.641 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] 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 0xFr-1PEPJtM for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 12:50:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B08861B2E71 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 12:50:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2620::930:0:ca2a:14ff:fe3e:d024] ([IPv6:2620:0:930:0:ca2a:14ff:fe3e:d024]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id s5PJjtZC018819 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 25 Jun 2014 12:45:56 -0700
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.3 owen.delong.com s5PJjtZC018819
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=delong.com; s=mail; t=1403725558; bh=wVxkLAPxaZJsOxkSoae5gNNMNPM=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc: Message-Id:References:To; b=wv7XXbQYaFj6AzZulg+pb1Kk96QcM4G6zItEcn5VCtyglpMt0L5osGe5tzRfzheU5 c+H9GgFqCSHExk5Gymm0iHTVqJ/tqHxvxiFNmxpunQXEa4MzwG/u3Sf7PQG7JRqcjZ 0truiLVYyQhzkhGDljjhaYDDlzJEMq0M1kNXH37Y=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E3D5349D-9C48-48B8-9DCA-45E92AE7E263"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\))
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+OBy1O_1x6xORtp+km_guHOTzsNTKU8zT5686PTMhL3oR2H+A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 12:46:07 -0700
Message-Id: <A69A4B72-AE97-4418-BFE9-2EA816EF8120@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> <CA+OBy1O_1x6xORtp+km_guHOTzsNTKU8zT5686PTMhL3oR2H+A@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Mann <john.mann@monash.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.2)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0rc1 (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]); Wed, 25 Jun 2014 12:45:58 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/div9JYep01PHqWEf_O-weGZZGNs
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 19:50:16 -0000

On Jun 24, 2014, at 21:06 , John Mann <john.mann@monash.edu> wrote:

> 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

None of this contradicts my statement that APNIC is at least twice as expensive as anyone else. (OK, not quite double LACNIC, but really close).

Owen