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/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] Revisiting RIPE Policy Proposal 2007-01
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Revisiting RIPE Policy Proposal 2007-01
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Revisiting RIPE Policy Proposal 2007-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at inex.ie
Thu Dec 4 12:05:08 CET 2008
Hank Nussbacher wrote: > Recently, RIPE Policy Proposal 2007-01 titled "Direct Internet Resource > Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC" was passed: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01.html Hank, This was discussed many times at RIPE meetings. Not at just one, but several. The final decision to put this into the charging scheme was made at the General Meeting in Dubai, but it was talked about at a couple of others. > As has been mentioned before: the address policy WG does not have the > power to actually decide on the final charging scheme. We give input > to the AGM (= annual general meeting of all NCC members), and the AGM > decides on the final charging scheme to be implemented. > So, regarding the *charging* component of 2007-01: the AGM can do this > without 2007-01, or they can decide to not do anything about it, even with > 2007-01 reaching consensus." I think the RIPE board wanted to ensure that there was a comprehensive solution in place to deal with the whole issue of provider independent number resources before trying to just change just the LIR billing component. You're possibly right - they may have been able to change the billing scheme without 2007-01, but that would have ended the board up with only a partial solution to a difficult problem. > Maybe I missed the discussion in regards to 2007-01 where it was stated > that the charging algorithm would change. Yes, you missed the discussion. It took place at RIPE meetings, not on the mailing list, and for the reasons you specify: billing is outside the scope of apwg. > For example, one LIR I > consult to was extra small in 2008 (1300Euro) and now is medium > (2550Euro). They assigned 54 ASNs between 1997-2005 and no IPv4 or IPv6 > address space at all. So since the charging algorithm is now a > retroactive recurring score, their bill doubled suddenly. Please see: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-new-draft2007-01-v4.html The LIR should pass on the cost to the end-users. I calculate the cost increase to be €23 per annum per ASN. Is that an unreasonable burden? Nick
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Revisiting RIPE Policy Proposal 2007-01
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Revisiting RIPE Policy Proposal 2007-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]