RE: Request To Advance : "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses"

[Dan Lanciani <ipng-incoming at danlan.com>]

"Jeroen Massar" <jeroen@unfix.org> wrote:

|I have only one note on the "unique local ipv6 address" subject:
|
|Organisations wanting "unconnected addressspace" should go to
|an existing organisation that they think will outlast them in age
|and that already has a LIR allocation allocated. Give them some
|money to make them happy and request a /48 from them.
|
|As long as the organisation owning the superblock of that /48
|doesn't go belly up you have yourself a globally unique /48.
|
|This is the same idea as getting a 'globally unique domainname'
|pay "Example Corp." some money and they will be happy to give
|you youruniquedomain.example.com.
|
|I even think that some ISP could see business in this, they 
|request a prefix from the RIR's and have 200 customers without
|problems ;)

I'm sure that some ISP could see business in this.  What I don't understand
is why it is necessary or desirable to create a revenue stream for ISPs in
this way.  Could you explain how it is beneficial to the v6 user community
to add an artificial address rental cost to internal networking operations?

				Dan Lanciani
				ddl@danlan.*com

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------