North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers
"Well, you say we need to spend more money every year on address space.Right... Let's look at this in detail:
/48 per customer == 65,536 customers at $2,250 == $0.03433/customer /56 per customer == 16,777,216 customers at $2,250 == $0.00013/customer
So, total savings per customer is $0.0342/customer _IF_ you have
16,777,216 customers. On the other hand, sir, for those customers
who need more than 256 subnets, we're running the risk of having
to assign them multiple noncontiguous prefixes. Although the cost
of doing so is not readily apparent, each router has a limit to the number
of prefixes that can be contained in the routing table. The cost of
upgrading all of our routers later probably far exceeds the $0.03
per customer that we would save. Really, in general, I think that
the place to look for per-customer savings opportunities would
be in places where we have a potential recovery greater than
$0.03 per customer.
This discussion is getting really silly; the fact of the matter is thatTrue, but, they don't, generally, charge by the address, either.
Usually, they charge by the month. If you can't cover $0.03/year/ customer
for address space in your monthly fees, then, raise your monthly
fee by $0.05. I'm betting your customers won't care.
I'm betting that competition will drive the boundary left without additionalAs an enduser I would love to pay the little fee for IP space that the
fees. After all, if you're only willing to dole out /64s and your competitor is
handing out /56 for the same price, then all the customers that want multiple
subnets are going to go to your competitor. The ones that want /48s will
find a competitor that offers that.
That's how the real world works. I remember having to repeatedly involve
senior management in rejecting requests for /24s from customers who
could not justify them because our sales people at Exodus kept promising
them. The sales people continuously suggested that our competitors
were offering everyone /24s and that they had to do that to win the deals.
OTOH, "Raw bandwidth communications" seems to want to charge bandwidth
utilization not actually based on the bandwidth utilized, but, the number of
IP addresses routed. They are not my ISP for that reason.
Different providers have different business models. Consumers will find the provider with the business model that best fits their needs. That's the way it works in the real world.
Assuming that PD is available is naive. However, assuming it is not is
equally naive. The device must be able to function in both circumstances
if possible, or, should handle the case where it can't function in a graceful
and informative manner.