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] 2012-04 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignments from the last /8)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignments from the last /8)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignments from the last /8)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tore Anderson
tore.anderson at redpill-linpro.com
Tue Sep 11 10:52:10 CEST 2012
* Daniel Roesen > To those who ask for "same price tag" for both PA and PI on grounds of > "fairness"... What is fair in asking the same price for what is > essentially a one-time operation (PI assignment) compared to the ongoing > maintenance of a LIR membership (PA alloc - think about assignment > request tickets, yearly billing, etc.)? The comparsion I'm making is between an organistion that either: * Joins the NCC - becomes a LIR * Makes 1 initial allocation request - gets a /22 * Makes 1 PA assignment request (to itself) Cost: €1750 Or: * Makes 1 PI assignment request [through a sponsoring LIR] Cost: €50 I don't believe that the current prices are «fair» either. While the first option is certainly means work for the NCC, I doubt it is 35 times the work. The resource is scarce - it is impossible to accomplish «fair». In any case, the reason why I'd like PI and PA to cost about the same is that 2012-04 with the current pricing structure would mean it is too easy and cheap for an organisation to work around the «max a /24» limitation. I could trivially set up legal entities like so: * ToreISP Main Street 1-80 Oslo * ToreISP Main Street 81-120 Oslo * ToreISP Grand Avenue 20-35 Stockholm ...and so on, and get all the PI /24s I need. The organisations that are actually NCC members will end up sponsoring me, too - potentially ending up with even higher membership fees, as the Impact Analysis points out. It may be circumenting policy, but I don't think there's any way to stop it. (The NCC mentions this in the Impact Analysis, too.) That's why I think there must be a financial disincentive against doing so, and €50 doesn't cut it. I'll end with an example of something similar already taking place: Under .no, a single organisation can only register 100 domains. Which leads to organisations such as these: http://w2.brreg.no/enhet/sok/treffliste.jsp?navn=edda+domene This isn't the work of a shady domain pirate/squatter either, Edda a very large and respected media/publishing conglomerate here. -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignments from the last /8)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignments from the last /8)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]