Re: quietly....

[Randy Carpenter <rcarpen () network1 net>]

> > 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