I think people are confusing the notion of 'permanent' and 'stable' addresses.
The case made for those local addresses was to be independent from ISP,
either to isolate from ISP changes or in the case of intermittent connection.
This require 'stable' addresses. i.e addresses that are stable for a long enough period of
time, here define long enough by for the lifetime of your operations.
This has nothing to do with 'permanent', which means until the end of the times.
So, I argue that 'permanent' is not a technical requirement.
Now, if we have multiple registries, it is up to them to find a business model
that makes sense for them. If it is easier/simpler to come with a one time fee
model, fine. If they think they cannot recover the costs of operation like that,
they may opt for a recurrent fee model. This would not mean that the prefixes won't
be stable, they would be as long as their owner keeps maintaining the subscription.
So I argue that the choice of a one time fee vs recurrent fee is an operational/economical
discussion that would be better kept out of this document.
As a side note, there are several issues with the 'permanent allocation, one time fee' model:
- This is really symptomatic of a consumer society where people do not think about waste management,
where resources are perceived unlimited and it is free spending.
- The business model is based on the assumption that the new comers will pay for the
management of the database so the previous customer won't have to pay for it.
I think this is completely broken, as it is fundamentally a pyramid scheme.
Remember those chain letters asking you to send money to 10 people and forward it to 20 others?
- It is unclear what happen when a company is acquired by another one or when
the addresses are registered to a person and that person dies.
Are those addresses considered as part of the assets of the company/person? Are they transferable?
- It would be the first time that the IETF would sanctify the sale (and not the stewardship) of
chunks of address space. This is a fundamental departure from what has been done
in the past.
- Alain.
On Feb 6, 2004, at 1:19 PM, Tim Chown wrote:
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 08:05:17PM +0000, Zefram wrote:Alain Durand wrote:While doing those edits, why not also remove the dictate to give permanent allocations from this document? After all, this is also an operational/business discussion, not a technical one.
It looks pretty technical to me. Permanent versus temporary allocation
fundamentally affects the ways the prefix can be used. This is quite
unlike the issue of the allocation procedure.
By the way, do you see any redeeming features in the idea of temporary
allocation of these prefixes? I see only greater complexity and reduced
utility.
One snag is that if they are temporary, it will inevitably lead to "returns"
that don't happen, and the original and new "owners" both using the prefix,
which will cause confusion/ambiguity/lack of uniqueness, which is thus breaking
the original goal of the draft. There's enough under the /7 to not need to
have temporary allocations.
Tim
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
