On Dec 4, 2013, at 10:32 , Nikolay Shopik <sho...@inblock.ru> wrote:
> On 04.12.2013 4:14, Mark Andrews wrote: >> In message <529d9492.8020...@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