[address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria

On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 02:19:52PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> > > Actually, as of today, IPv4 PI is much more convenient than the proposed
> > > IPv6 policy: there is *no cost* attached to IPv4 PI.
> > 
> > This isn't really correct. The sponsoring LIR pays for it, and usually
> > will charge the customer for that one way or another. Some attach a
> > price tag for it, others see it as added customer service.
> 
> Yes, you're right here.  I remembered "PI is special" but forgot in 
> which way (only charged in the first year, not in the following years,
> same as for AS numbers).

Correct.

> Still different from "becoming a LIR and paying yearly recurring fees"
> (which the point I wanted to make).

This is correct too. Given that it's basically a one-time effort for
RIPE NCC and the sponsoring LIR, it's not too unreasonable. Apart from
the setup effort (evaluating request, creating the objects) it's just
the objects lingering around in the RIPE DB (plus providing the robots
to change those objects, but that's a public service anyway).


Best regards,
Daniel

-- 
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0