[address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)

Hi,

On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 01:32:22AM +0200, Elvis Velea wrote:
> Regarding the payment fees, we can not decide anything in this WG 
> anyway, I'd like to ask everyone to either hold on to this discussion 
> for the GM in Athens or open the discussion on the 
> members-discuss at ripe.net mailing list.

Well.  APWG can not *decide* on the charging scheme, but we can make
reasonable proposals to the AGM - and if the addressing community agrees
that something makes sense, the NCC board usually listens closely and
works that into the next proposed charging scheme.

We did that with 2007-01, and while it wasn't easy, it got done in the
end.  Now all sides have a bit more experience in listening to each other,
so it might be easier this time :-)

Anyway - what we need to be careful about is

 - do not make the price for "what used to be called PI holders" 
   dramatically higher - technically, we might do this ("we vote, they 
   pay"), but the signal this sends to the world is "we're a cartel 
   and we've just decided that we all pay less and everyone else pays
   more", which is very likely to get us into deep shit with regulators,
   tax authorities, etc.

 - have the right incenctives here (e.g.: "a /32 costs 10000 EUR/year, 
   a /48 costs 50 EUR/year" would send the message to ISPs "if you can 
   number your network with a /48, you can save serious money!" and that 
   will lead to "assigning customers a /64 or even less", which we don't 
   want)


So I think something like

 - every LIR pays a base fee ("one size fits all") which includes their
   initial /29.../32 ("as today")

 - every extra "small allocation" (smaller than /32) costs 50 EUR/year
    (+ 50 EUR/year per IPv4 PI)

 - every extra "big allocation" (/32 or shorter) costs 500 EUR/year

would get us somewhere, without causing extra turmoil - for today's
address holders, nothing much would change, and for future allocations,
the financial incentives to go one way or other ("do not become LIR,
get your /32 from a sponsoring LIR" and "run your whole ISP on a /48") 
are not significant enough to outweigh other reasons.


Elvis, I think this is something which deserves it's own slide and 10
minutes of discussion at the APWG meeting :-)  (and possibly other
models for charging scheme and incentives), so we can then have input
to the AGM for consideration...

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 (0)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/20131001/a160fc0d/attachment.sig>