6bone Prequalification for Sub-TLA assignment

[Brian E Carpenter]

This isn't the IETF, so we don't have a blanket rule against talking
about pricing, but I still wouldn't recommend it; such discussions
never converge.

   Brian

Seth David Schoen wrote:
> 
> Smirk35@aol.com writes:
> 
> > Just an observer,
> >
> > Maybe giving the community a section of IPv6 as we do with (IPv4 10.x.x.x) so
> > that the community will be able to use it as a test bed and then allow the
> > pTLA submit a small addressing of IPv6 for access to 6bone like most of the
> > world does with IPv4 Internet access with class-C's.
> >
> > Pricing the block of addresses would deter the small business wanting a very
> > large block of IPv6.  Low cost on small blocks and tracking the number of
> > blocks by that company so as not to accumulate 100s of small blocks by the
> > same company.
> 
> There's certainly nothing wrong with testing allocations, but there's already
> a working IPv6 testing allocation (3FFE); I haven't heard of any plans to
> take it back or to shut down the 6bone just because production allocations
> are coming up.
> 
> Network 10 in IPv4 isn't really for "testing": it's intended for production
> use on private networks.  (RFC 1657, RFC 1918)  Private networks -- at least
> "permanent" or structurally private networks that cannot possibly be directly
> connected to the Internet -- are deprecated.
> 
> In the old days of IPv4, there was no charge for IPv4 allocations.  (Some
> people I know managed to get portable class C allocations when they were
> fourteen to sixteen years old, without particularly extensive justification
> about what they were going to do with them.  That's how liberal the
> allocations were before the Internet became a household word.)
> 
> There's no reason that people should be paying for IPv6 addresses themselves,
> since IPv6 was deliberately designed so as to make addresses non-scarce.
> Of course, registrants may well need to pay a filing fee to meet the
> administrative costs of the registries, but there is no reason that they
> should pay for the actual address delegations.
> 
> Remember that these addresses are _addresses_, which exist in mathematical
> spaces and not in the physical world, and that the addressing and allocation
> schemes are being designed in advance by people to meet their requirements.
> If everything is done right, there should be no scarcity of addresses, and
> consequently no need to pay for them, and no market for them.
> 
> --
>               Seth David Schoen / schoen@uclink4.berkeley.edu
> He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do."  And they
> said, "Nay, but we will have a king over us, that we also may be like all the
> nations." (1 Sam 8)  http://ishmael.geecs.org/~sigma/   http://www.loyalty.org/