Re: [sig-policy] Final call for comments:[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6
> because "100% discount of PAF for all allocations" will be
> simpler than "90% discount of PAF only for IPv4 infrastructure
> based evaluation".
>
> If you point out the long-term NIR fee change, it is not a
> small amount and PAF no longer fits - for example a *single*
> /21 IPv6 allocation introduced us PAF of USD64K where JPNIC's
> total annual payment for APNIC was approx USD200K. This is
> a huge difference either in case PAF would be born by the LIR
> or by the NIR. PAF used to be modest enough to be fit. but
> it isn't any longer.
>
> Am I answering?
yes, at last! so the 'complexity' is really the size of the
number, not that the rirs can not calculate a simple step
function.
while i suspect i could sympathize with the costs when looked
at as absolute bhat/dollar/dong/yen amounts, US$64k ain't bad
for more address space than all of ipv4. especially as i
suspect an ipv4 /16 will be going for upwards of US$1m in a
few years.
but now that we're down to the money, what do you think a
reasonable curve, or step function, would be? it sounds as
if stephan (and others from whom i have email) are concerned
about how it goes forward. so discussing a replacement
proposal may help alleviate some of the disagreement. then
again, it may not; some of us are just disagreeable :-).
randy