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

Hi,

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 04:22:50PM +0100, Martin Millnert wrote:
> >> 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.

... but backfires if you have a particularily fast or slow IPRA...  since
these are humans with differing background, your request might hit one
IPRA that has very much or very little experience on the way *you* want
to roll out your network...  or extra curiosity adding more e-mail
rounds...  so I'm not sure this can be done in a way that would be
considered "fair".

Just throwing concerns around.


> >>   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* :)

Ah, understood.  So the yearly cost would be identically for everybody,
and the initial request is billed for "the real cost caused by it".  Right?

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/20111031/bd63f154/attachment.sig>