David Farmer <farmer@xxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 10:15 AM Nico Schottelius < > nico.schottelius@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > ... Also >> > I think there are some tough questions that may need to be resolved >> > around points of contact and relevant laws. These are things that >> > both ICANN and the various RIRs have paid considerable attention to. >> >> They did and they do. However I think the focus has never been on >> enabling (non-profit) commmunities. I am emphasising on this as >> historically when people can spend time (but not money) on something, >> innovation happens. We have not yet addressed this problem properly in >> the IPv6 world. >> > > The ARIN community has put significant effort into reducing the barriers as > low as possible, for IPv6 allocations, all barriers can't be eliminated. > However, the entry point has been lowered to $250 for a /40 IPv6 > allocation, intended for the smallest ISP-like organization, an LIR, > that is an organization that makes assignments to other end-uerser. I believe $250/y is quite a good price tag, indeed. As you mention, it is still not fully inclusive, but I understand the reasoning to at least cover the costs from ARIN side. Given that all RIRs would offer /40's (I'd even go as small as /48 per party) at cost price, this would be a good start. In that case access to IPv6 addresses could be based on a sponsorship / donation model, buy-2-sponsor-1, and/or cross financed by bigger LIRs (for every /32 you sponsor access to 1 /40). I agree with the previously discussed argument "space should not be free" to prevent abuse, but I'd still envision a "pay by time / work" method, because that resource is usually abundant in non-profits. Best regards, Nico -- Sustainable and modern Infrastructures by ungleich.ch
