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

Dear Daniel,

> - It doesn't change
> almost anything in practice - as new IPv4 PI aren't assigned, this
> just affects existing assignments.

It can drop amount of LIRs, while much cheaper to find PI - pay one time fee
to owner and then return PA space and cancel contract as LIR. I understund
difference PA & PI, but as I told - real customers often uses PI as PA.     
 --

 Aleksei
LeaderTelecom

04.08.2014 15:29 - Daniel Suchy написал(а): -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Membership fee at these times doesn't in any case correlate with
ammount of address resources held by each LIR. Conversely, fees were
simplified.

- From APWG perspective, I *support* this proposal. It doesn't change
almost anything in practice - as new IPv4 PI aren't assigned, this
just affects existing assignments.

With regards,
Daniel

On 4.8.2014 11:46, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 11:26:59AM +0200, Andrzej Dopiera??a
> wrote:
>> "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
>
> As said before, APWG has very little influence on the charging
> scheme.
>
> So please keep prices out of this discussion here - charging scheme
> and RIPE fees can be discussed on the ripe-members list.
>
> thanks,
>
> Gert Doering -- APWG chair
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iEYEARECAAYFAlPfbGcACgkQ0m6yQqKjWoJoAgCfbkg+0rfky7vca9FMDNYzzp7e
ZZ8An1UGqAFWdZqyNnatvYM+qa9TNHNp
=yQF1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20140804/c8a506f7/attachment.html>