[address-policy-wg] concept document: IPv6 PA/PI unification

Hi Gert,

On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:
> 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".

Check.  It looked like that (and I decided to bite).

> 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?

I'm not suggesting charge per block size either. :)

> (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).

Agreed.

>> 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?

Good question.. Handle applications where users/customers are shown to
be given /56s or larger, faster? (Ie. cheaper, according to below)

>> Out-of-the-box counter-proposal:

>>   IPRA interacting work (including address space requests) ==
>>     [IPRA hour fee] * [IPRA-time spent on application],

Pay per direct load on the hostmasters.  This could encourage people
having more clue interacting with the RIPE NCC and so on.

>>   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 :) ).

Share *overhead* costs equally, yes.  *shrug* :)

Best,
Martin