This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it lessdestructive
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it lessdestructive
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it lessdestructive
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Mon May 1 20:00:40 CEST 2006
Hi, On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 06:25:19PM +0100, Sascha Luck wrote: > Am I completely wrong here, or does a LIR pay for the privilege of > assigning IP space to end-users? Which, looking at some "ISP"s insane > business models ( ???200/year for a /29 - hello?) could be a profitable > business in itself. The sum of the LIR fees pays for the RIPE NCC budget (which is non-profit, but is permitted to build some savings). The fees are explicitely not "per IP address" (so "two times the address space" doesn't mean "twice the fee") - *but* there is a address space dependent component, to better balance the fees between "small LIRs" and "large LIRs" - and there is no other easily applicable metric to measure a LIR's size than "internet resources used" (this model could be changed by the members in the RIPE AGM, btw). Even for large LIRs, the total yearly fee is not that much, compared to "having a few competent employees looking after their network". If some ISPs have funny business models, pick a different one. There are enough in the market place - but don't complain that your favourite "internet free for 2 EUR/month" ISP isn't offering everything that you'd like to see included in that 2 EUR... > Having said that, there is no technical reason why PA and PI should be > different at all - if anyone with routable IPv[46] space would be > required to be a RIR member that should appease the "It's unfair that > we should pay and have to deal with RIRs and others don't" faction. It > would also give them access to the relevant training and tools. The LIR > function would then be altogether separate from the IP space request > function. Yes. > I predict some opposition from the RIRs, though... I can't speak for other regions, but the RIPE NCC is there to serve the needs of the RIPE members - so if *we* decide that we want to change something, the RIPE NCC will implement it. And usually in a friendly and competent way. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 92315 SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it lessdestructive
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it lessdestructive
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]