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

On 30/09/2013 18:00, Tore Anderson wrote:
> All existing PI holders would become simultaneously both the LIR *and*
> the End User in the above chain, so I'm not sure where this confusion
> would come from?

So how could you convince the existing ipv6 PI holders that the cost
increase from €50/year to LIR membership fees would be worth it?

IOW, there are two problems here: an addressing flavour issue, which
relates to the RIPE community, and a billing issue which is the
responsibility of the RIPE NCC.

For sure, you couldn't do this to just the ipv6 PI assignments - it would
have to be to all address space, but then you get into the thorny issue of
billing.

Let me pull out a paper napkin for a moment and hand-wave the possibility
that all PI holders became LIRs and all LIRs paid the same fees.  The 2014
budget is €21.7m (practical).  All LIRs pay the same (ncc member policy).
There are about 9500 members and 33000 assigned pi resources (reality),
probably with lots of overlap (reasonable speculation).  Let's pluck a
figure out of thin air and say that there are 35000 distinct end users +
lirs (wild speculation), who need to pay an equal share of a budget of
€21.7 million.  This means you have maybe 25000-30000 organisations around
the ripe ncc service region who are going to see their fees increase from
(wholesale) €50 to €650 per annum.

This won't fly.  We need to be practical about a workable policy proposal
here.  Whether we like it or not, there is a strong history of cost
differentiation in terms of how ip addresess are handled, and I don't see a
practical way of levelling the field within the constraints of what's
workable and what we'd ultimately like.

Nick