lists at c4inet.net
Wed Sep 29 00:26:32 CEST 2010
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 10:49:29PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 08:27:44PM +0000, Sascha Luck wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 09:57:22PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
>> >That's actually what we try in RIPE land - tack a heap of paperwork
>> >to a PI network, and a yearly fee. Not high enough to seriously impact
>> >larger enterprises, but annoying enough to drive away "barbershop sized
>> And this is what will ultimately turn around and bite you in the arse
>> since it is blatantly anticompetitive and thus illegal. I hope I'll see
>> that day soon.
>So what's your approach? Close down the Internet? Abandon PI? Give
>every ISP out there the money to sustain 4 billion routes?
If there is a problem at all, it is a technical one. (I'm not convinced
there is, 329k routes today and the internet is still not dead.)
Spend a fraction of the resources used trying to protect Big Telco's
investments on R&D for a new DFZ routing protocol and this could be solved
long before any hard limits are reached.
>(It's no more anticompetitive, btw, than charging for gasoline - those
>who find it too expensive to use their car can use a bicycle.
If petrol price was artifically inflated to an extent that only
$large_enterprise could afford it, those responsible would be burned
alive - and rightly so.
Besides, you don't have to spend weeks convincing the attendant that you are
using your tankful for legitimate purposes. This "policy" is *explicitly*
designed to favour Big Telco who has a legal/compliance department to deal
with that BS.
> Having >a policy that says "if you have less than 500 employees, you MUST NOT
> have a routing table slot" - now *that* would be anticompetitive)
Effectively, 2007-01 does precisely that. You admitted as much yourself:
"Not high enough to seriously impact larger enterprises, but annoying
enough to drive away "barbershop sized businesses""
More information about the ipv6-ops