On Dec 4, 2013, at 10:32 , Nikolay Shopik <shopik@inblock.ru> wrote:
On 04.12.2013 4:14, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message <529D9492.8020205@inblock.ru>, Nikolay Shopik writes:
On 03/12/13 02:54, Owen DeLong wrote:
I have talked to my bean counters. We give out /48s to anyone who wants them and we don't charge for IPv6 add ress space.
There is some ISP who afraid their users will be reselling their connectivity to other users around. While I didin't see that in years (probably last time in 2005) but still this exist in poor regions.
And if they didn't resell it they probably wouldn't have a customer in the first place. Unless you offer "unlimited" plans the ISP isn't losing anything here. The bandwidth being used is being paid for. If it isn't the ISP needs to adjust the price points to cover their costs rather than hoping that people won't use all of the bandwidth they have purchased.
If we talk about end-user not business user, ISP assume 95th% load will be minimal so therefore it allow them to sell 100mbit for like 20-30$, while real price of it much higher.
Please tell me what provider is selling 100Mbit for $20-30 in the 408-532-xxxx area of San Jose, California. Currently, the only provider capable of delivering more than 768k wired here is charging me $100+/month for 30-50Mbps maximum. I could get 100Mbps from them, but they want $250+/month for that. If I can get 100Mbps for $20-30, I'd jump at it.
If its big ISP they usually don't care, as there always be downloaders who saturate their link to 90% most time, but compare to most of other users in their net, this will be not noticeable. If its just smallish ISP things get harder for it.
For $100+/month, frankly, it's none of their business whether I'm pooling my resources with my neighbors to pay for the connectivity or not.
This is like the whole tethered debate. Why should the ISP care about which device the packets are source from. The customer is buying so many gigabytes of traffic a month. They should be able to use them anyway they see fit without actually breaking the laws of the land.
If you actually pay per bit, true or have some kind "fair usage" unlimited plan.
Which is pretty much all that is available any more.
I let my daughter's friends use the net at home here. If they burn through my monthly allotment well then I need to pony up more money or take a reduced service level until the month ends. It's none of my ISP's concern how the bandwidth I have purchased from them is being used.
If you talk about wired connection, this thing almost non-existing here. Only apply to wireless 3G/4G ISPs with limited bits and then reduced service.
Not entirely sure what you are saying here. In this day and age, I don't see any reason that wireless providers should get a free pass or be able to sustain significantly worse policies than wireline providers. Wireless bandwidth is rapidly approaching parity with wired bandwidth pricing at consumer levels.
Some even come up with idea two separate /64 make things easier :-D, instead just put at least round /60
Actually, providing a separate /64 for the provider link makes a lot of sense. It really is best to pull that out of a separate provider aggregate across all the subscribers in the same aggregation group than to carve individual link prefixes out of each subscribers internal-use prefix. For example, if you get a tunnel from HE, then, by default, you get a /64 from our link block for the tunnel broker to which you connect and an additional /64 for your internal use by default. If you click the "please give me a /48" checkbox, then you'll also get an additional /48. We do this because it makes our provisioning easier and allows us to support users that want prefixes as well as users whose equipment (or brains) can't handle more than a single /64 for their LAN. There's really NOTHING to be gained from providing anything in between a /64 and a /48, so we don't do it. Owen