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

For those that might have missed the discussion on this mailing list about the policy proposal or didn’t attend RIPE68, I have done a presentation in Warshaw at RIPE68 about the policy proposal. 

 

These options have been discussed there and you can review the discussion on the archive here : https://ripe68.ripe.net/archives/video/167/ 

 

Regards,

Erik Bais

 

Van: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] Namens LeaderTelecom Ltd.
Verzonden: maandag 4 augustus 2014 12:41
Aan: noable at gmail.com
CC: 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 [...]

 

Dear Andrei,

> The single solution is to make PI cost = PA cost and allow ISP to move PI > PA without additional problems.

Very good solution. All PI convert to PA. As a result memebership fee will be less in 2 times or more while we will have at least in 2 times more RIPE members.

--
Aleksei

04.08.2014 13:05 - Andrei Kushnireuski написал(а): 

Everybody knows a lot of ISPs use PI at result of non-ideal IPv4 assignment policy from the RIPE NCC side. 

 

The single solution is to make PI cost = PA cost and allow ISP to move PI > PA without additional problems.

 

 

--

Andrei Kushnireuski

 

  

On 04 Aug 2014, at 10:54, LeaderTelecom Ltd. <info at leadertelecom.ru <mailto:info at leadertelecom.ru> > wrote:

  

 

Dear Andrzej,

> PI and PA are for different purposes.
> PA are for ISP's, who give ip's for customers.

Yes, this is great theory.

In fact people ask - why I have to pay for LIR? PI is cheaper for me. I will use IPs as I need. 
I see a lot of requests for PI networks last month. They ready to pay for transfer one time and then pay very small money every year.  


> Then - PI owner with /24 block would pay 100E. And ISP with /18 would pay 64 *100E = 6400E ? :)

I remember very long discussion about it ) We decided that each LIR is a member and we contribute same amount of money into RIPE. And it is logicaly.
 

--
Aleksei


04.08.2014 12:37 - Andrzej Dopierała написал(а): 

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  <mailto:gert at space.net> <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/


 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20140804/98a03307/attachment.html>