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

Hi Gert,

On 10/1/13 10:19 AM, Gert Doering wrote:
> 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.

right :)

>
> 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 :-)

I hope that it won't take us two years to get consensus to this proposal 
(as it happened with 2007-01) :)

>
> 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.

I see, well.. I think it's time we ask the RIPE NCC for some statistics 
[1] before we can actually see how this could be modeled.

>
>   - 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)
>

correct, I would not want to see ISPs/hosting companies sub-allocating a 
/96 or a /112 to fit everything within a /48.

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

I agree.

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

I don't really agree with this bit, but it may be one way to go.

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

Here is why I do not agree with the 50€ for the /48 and 500€ for the /32 
or more..

If we recommend the AGM to do it this way and they actually agree and 
vote next year to have this charging scheme, I am afraid that ISPs and 
hosting companies will immediately say:

- wait a second, so if I number everything within a /48 I can save 
450€/year?
- what would cost me to use a /112 to connect a customer? nothing.
- What are the technical disadvantages? None.
- Why would I use a /64 or more and be forced to pay 500€?

> 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.
>

Your idea may work but we may also see that everyone will request a /48 
and try to fit all their operations within that /48.

>
> 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...

I agree.

>
> Gert Doering
>          -- APWG chair
>

[1] to the RIPE NCC: Can you please give us some aggregate data 
regarding the following numbers:
(We do not need exact numbers, as these will change 5 minutes later once 
you make a new registry change - assignment/allocation/etc)

1. Is my number correct ? There are approximately 28355 PI assignments
2. How many organisations are using these 28355 PIs?

3. Is my number correct? There are approximately 1538 IPv6 PI assignments
4. How many organisations are using these 1538 IPv6 PIs?

5. How many LIRs have an IPv6 allocation but not an IPv4 one?

thank you,
elvis