[address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2014072901004581] 2014-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv4 PI transfer [...]

Yes. It was complex, because membership to specific class depend on 
years of ip owning, date, other lirs etc.
It was stupid.

It was because amount of ip owned by RIPE was not fixed.

"the best" is simple structure. For example
- every lir who give ip for others - pay 1600e, every pi owner who use 
ip for infrastructure pay 50e (like now)
- every ip owner (independly pi or pa) pay the same amound of money for 
every ip which have

both are simple.
And second is better. In first schema - get a thought experiment - what 
would happen if all lirs merged together. If they would pay 1600euro 
(like in 1 scenario) - total ripe income would be 1600euro. much to low 
for ripe.
In second scenario - income of ripe (ncc) aren't depended on count of 
lirs, but on amount of owned ip's.
currenty there is no new ip's, so dependende the payment from date of 
grant is senseless.


W dniu 04.08.2014 11:15, Erik Bais pisze:
> Hi Andrzej,
>
> This is getting off-topic to the mentioned policy, but I will answer your question.
>
>> If we want to be fair - why not pay for every used ip? why shouldn't pay 100E every /24 block?
>> Then - PI owner with /24 block would pay 100E. And ISP with /18 would pay 64 *100E = 6400E ? :)
> That would have a tax implication for the RIPE NCC and that is one of the reasons why the members votes 2 years ago to a simpler fixed fee structure.
> As you might know the charging schema was pretty complex in the past.
>
> Regards,
> Erik Bais
>
>
> Van: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] Namens Andrzej Dopierala
> Verzonden: maandag 4 augustus 2014 10:37
> Aan: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Onderwerp: Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2014072901004581] 2014-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv4 PI transfer [...]
>
> PI and PA are for different purposes.
> PA are for ISP's, who give ip's for customers.
> I cooperate with two ip owners.
> One - is ISP. Give ip, block of ip for customers (on lans, in collocations etc). It's LIR.
>
> Second - is voip provider. Need stable links from differend upstreams, with BGP. Don't give ip for cusomers. IP's are used only for own infrastructure - SIP proxy, registrars, application services, www with SSL, VPNS's etc.
>
> And need stable ip's, because changing ip's in customers is extremaly hardly (they have ipsecs, firewalls etc).
> Here is used PI class.
>
> I think puting both ip owners in one bag is misteake. First - use thousands of ip's. For second - /24 is enought forever.
>
> Paying by both common "lir fee" would be unfair.
>
> If we want to be fair - why not pay for every used ip? why shouldn't pay 100E every /24 block?
>
> Then - PI owner with /24 block would pay 100E. And ISP with /18 would pay 64 *100E = 6400E ? :)
>
> W dniu 04.08.2014 10:14, LeaderTelecom Ltd. pisze:
> Hello all,
>
> I don't support this proposal.
>
> This is Pandora's box.
>
> To get 1024 IPs for now company can register LIR and pay to RIPE 2000 eur + 1600 eur annually. If same company will transfer PI, then they will pay to RIPE only 50 eur.
>
> LIR's will be in much worse situation than owners of PI-networks.
>
> We can apply proposal if we will increase payment for PI-networks after transfer. For example, 1000 eur annually for each PI resource. In this situation new LIRs and owners of PI-network will pay into RIPE NCC similar payments.
>
> --
> Aleksei Ivanov
> LeaderTelecom
>    
>
> On 28 Jul 2014, at 20:18, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:
>
>> Dear AP WG,
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:58:51AM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote:
>>> The draft document for the proposal described in 2014-02,
>>> "Allow IPv4 PI transfer" has been published. The impact analysis
>>> that was conducted for this proposal has also been published.
>>>
>>>
>>> You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at:
>>>
>>>     https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02
>>>
>>> and the draft document at:
>>>
>>>     https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02/draft
>>
>> We could use a bit more input on this proposal.  We have one clear
>> statement of support, and one mail that puts up some questions while not
>> taking a clear pro/con position - and that is not enough to declare
>> anything except "needs more time" at the end of review phase.
>>
>> So, tell me your thoughts, please.
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> Gert Doering,
>>   APWG chair
>>
>>
>> Gert Doering
>>         -- NetMaster
>> --
>> 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
>   
>
>
>


-- 
Regards,
Andrzej 'The Undefined' Dopierała
http://andrzej.dopierala.name/