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] concept document: IPv6 PA/PI unification
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] concept document: IPv6 PA/PI unification
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] concept document: IPv6 PA/PI unification
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Sat Oct 29 22:51:43 CEST 2011
Hi, On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 04:56:40PM +0200, Martin Millnert wrote: > On Fri, 2011-10-28 at 19:16 +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > > * yearly recurring cost "per block of numbers", independent of size(!), > > reflecting the cost of handling the address space request, documentation, > > RIPE database, etc., which increase if you need "many blocks" > > > This was an interesting suggestion. > > Going straight for the details of one point, I wonder, what's the most > fair way to reflect the handling cost of an address space request? I see your point, and I'm buy no way insisting on "every block costs the same". The reason why I proposed to do it this way is to discourage large-scale ISPs from going for "we give all our customers a single /128 each, so we can run the whole country-wide network on a /48 and save lots of money!". We *want* them to give /56s (or such) to customers, and if there's a monetary penalty for doing so - is this the right message to send? (OTOH, depending on the final numbers, the per-block-per-year price might be low enough to make this all uninteresting - if it's "50 EUR per /48, 100 EUR per /32, 200 EUR for /28 or bigger", the financial incentive is not that strong). > So I guess I disagree with your conclusion from the arguments you > iterated over. What about the "encourage ISPs to give end-users a reasonably-sized network" argument? > Out-of-the-box counter-proposal: > IPRA interacting work (including address space requests) == > [IPRA hour fee] * [IPRA-time spent on application], > Infrastructure cost sharing (yearly recurring cost) == > [RIPE NCC specific registry / IPRA related costs] > ----------------------------------------- > number of LIRs at billing year end (*) I'm not sure I get that formula - are you dividing everything by number of LIRs, so everybody pays the same price? (Now that would be simple :) ). Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 306 bytes Desc: not available URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20111029/2141e0d2/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] concept document: IPv6 PA/PI unification
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] concept document: IPv6 PA/PI unification
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]