Re: [ga] Overcoming IPv6 Security Threat

[Leah G <jandl@jandl.com>]

On Tuesday 08 October 2002 01:05 am, Joe Baptista wrote:
> I agree - my main concern in the IPv6 or IPv4 debate/issues is a recent
> attempt by the RIR to charge fees for allocations.  It basically works out
> to $2,500 per allocation /19 in IPv4 or /48 in IPv6.
>
>
> The amount being charged is nonsense.  All the RIR's do is provide reverse
> resolution - in-addr.arpa for IPv4 and i'm not sure what they have decided
> on for IPv6.
>
>
> Reverse resolution takes up the same resources as regular domain
> resolution - so at best the charge should be a flat $6 per allocation.
>
>
> The organizations I'm involved with had their IPv4 allocations issued long
> before the ICANN/IANA dance started and we don't get charged anything per
> year for our allocations.  And IANA/ICANN have no power to get them back.
> Control of IP numbers is at the router level.  So to take control the
> RIR's now force people to sign agreements.
>
>
> This will result in making the internet significant;y more expensive to
> the users.

Very true, and one of the issues that some of us tried to address quite some 
time ago.  Small entities will find that costs will increase to an 
intolerable level due to overcharges that do nothing more than keep 
beaurocracies in place.   This is supposed to be the non-profit sector and 
there is no need for such pricing.  The end result is a manufactured "tax" on 
IP addressing, with tremendous profit built in as it goes downstream.  

If IPV6 is the *answer* to the shortage of addressing, then there should be 
even less reason to overcharge for the allocations.

Leah


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html