--On Wednesday, December 1, 2004 8:36 +0200 Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi> wrote:

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004, Owen DeLong wrote:

...

...

if the prices were one or two orders of magnitude higher, that might be true. That's way too cheap as it is. 10000$ upfront, 5000$/yr for renewal might scare away who _really_ don't need them. Have the RIRs donate the markup to ISOC or whoever and we're done.

So, you think that global resources should be allocated solely on the basis of wealth. Well... I don't subscribe to that theory, so, on this we will certainly have to agree to disagree.

No. I'm just saying that they need to distributed based on who _really_ needs them and based on who is sufficiently relevant in the global scale of things that cannot use some other mechanisms which do not require presence at the global routing table.

Well... You said that your intended criteria for determining need was to make them pay $10,000 up front and $5,000/year for renewal. If I'm Ford Motor Company or Donald Trump, then, that's easy. On the other hand, if I'm a rural ISP in the american south west, multihomed to 5 or 6 upstream providers and a number of local peers churning in annual profits in the neighborhood of $100,000 to $500,000, then, that's an awful lot of money just to get a single integer.

Unfortunately, putting a sufficient cost to the resources is one of the few ways to measure real need. If you have real need, and you're big enough to be globally relevant, you _can_ afford e.g. 5k/yr.

Except that it has a number of problems: 1. It has no association with need. 2. We already see that some of the worst abusing organizations in general are also some of the best funded. 3. It penalizes a number of organizations with real need and poor funding. 4. It is an arbitrary and capricious attack on a significant portion of the community.

The point is to make PI/ASN-based multihoming sufficiently unattractive to those who should be using local instead of global means.

Herein lies the major difference between your position and mine. You seem to have this mystical idea of some clear cut distinction between "Should be able to use PI/ASN based multihoming" and "Should be using PA space and local instead of global means" (whatever that actually means). My questions are: 1. How do you determine the distinction between these two classes? (An actual rule that can be applied fairly and consistently by RIR staff when considering resource requests) 2. Why do you think that criteria is a valid criteria? (I can't really refute it until I know what it is.)

For example, my own consulting company certainly (currently with a /24) falls under that category.. sure, it would be nice to have PI and BGP for multihoming -- but I don't have any delusions of grandeour that my site would be worth it in the global scale of things. Just because it might be easiest way for _me_ doesn't mean it's the way multihoming should be done because of the impacts on the rest of the world.

My focus isn't easiest, but, frankly, it's far more important as far as I am concerned to more people in Europe to be able to reliably reach my site for my consulting company (and other purposes hosted there) than to be able to reach WalMart. Again, I'll be interested to see what your actual criteria for making this determination are, but, I suspect we will not agree about what they should be, and, that we will, in the end, have to agree to disagree about who should be in the position to make the decision of whether a given organization is worthy of PI and dynamic multihoming. Owen