> > The concept of v4 to v6 addressing scale doesn't match the pricing > > scale, though. Generally, I expect to see most ISPs find themselves > > 1 rank higher in the v6 model compared to v4, which effectively > > doubles your price anyways. :) > > > > > > Jack > > Actually, so far, most ISPs are finding themselves one rank lower. > > The exception is particularly small providers and there is a > combination of suggestion (about fees) and policy (Proposal 121) > effort underway to rectify that problem. > > Owen
A specific example of the sizes of ISP I am working with: Most of them have between a /17 and a /20 of address space. If (hopefully when) Proposal 121 is adopted, all of the ones that are around a /17, should be getting a /28. Some of the ones that are /19 currently, would be getting a /28. While I wholeheartedly agree with Proposal 121, that represents 2 jumps in cost. These might represent some unusual situations, and might even fall under your definition of "particularly small." I hope that if Proposal 121 does pass, that the fees are restructured so that /36, /32, /28, /24, and /20 have different fees that line up with X-small, Small, Medium, Large, and X-large, respectively. -Randy