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

Gert,

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:
> 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.

They're fair concerns and does point to a perhaps greater issue: that
variance of IPRA's can be that high that it makes a big difference.
The system is right now not optimized towards per-hour billing for
applications, etc, however, so it's hard to conclude what the variance
would be in that situation.

>
>> >>   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?

Well, identical for everybody using the IP registry services - yes. :)

Cheers,
Martin