IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Int-area] Review of draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-05

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Sat, 21 August 2010 05:05 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 580453A6A21 for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Aug 2010 22:05:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.49
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.49 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.109, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g6NvsLoRWVXc for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Aug 2010 22:05:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B65393A693A for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Aug 2010 22:05:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1OmgEJ-000Dk2-Hj for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 05:02:55 +0000
Received: from [2001:418:1::40] (helo=ran.psg.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1OmgED-000Dje-Sg for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 05:02:49 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=rmac.psg.com.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1OmgE8-000Kmr-MX; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 05:02:44 +0000
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 14:02:43 +0900
Message-ID: <m2pqxcmubw.wl%randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Cc: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>, Eric Gray <eric.gray@ericsson.com>, Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>, "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Review of draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-05
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1008210642111.8562@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <D74F3837-E115-49FB-A9AB-5E0C53406621@tony.li> <C0AC8FAB6849AB4FADACCC70A949E2F1058062E62F@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se> <188C11C5-CDBA-4213-83AC-453AE06ADAD5@cisco.com> <alpine.DEB.1.10.1008210642111.8562@uplift.swm.pp.se>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>

>> I think there is a great reason to suggest that access and transit 
>> networks to offer their downstreams /48, /52, /56, and /60 options at 
>> various costs.
> 
> I can understand the /48 and /56 options (for corporate and
> residential respectively), but I don't really get the /52 and
> /60. What is the cost difference to the ISP that warrants a different
> end user price for these services, and isn't it just an extra cost to
> switch the user between these services (reprovisioning) when their
> needs change?

and why is the ietf discussing ephemeral operator pricing models?

randy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email