On Nov 1, 2010, at 5:23 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
> It's not a one size fits all situation.
Right. There are folks who are more than happy (in fact demand) to pay the
RIRs for PI space and pay their ISPs to get that space routed. There are
(probably) folks who are perfectly happy with PA and accept that they'll need
to renumber all their devices and change all their configs where there are IPv6
literals. But my impression is that there are more people who want to minimize
the costs associated with PI _and_ with renumbering, hence PA+ULA+NAT66. As
far as I can tell, the cost/benefit calculations here isn't significantly
different from what it was with IPv4 ("96 bits, no magic").
> Whatever; a useful side effect of the fees is that they provide a
> barrier to the uptake of PI by smaller organisations.
Are those fees that much more of a deterrent than what ISPs will charge to
route the PI space?
> Only those who can
> justify the cost of PI (in whatever terms that make sense to them) will
> go that way, and that will probably not be the many millions of
> residential users, who will be quite happy to use PA.
My guess is that the millions of residential users will be less and less
enthused with (pure) PA each time they change service providers...
Regards,
-drc
