<!DOCTYPE html><html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/></head><body style="font-family:Geneva,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">Dear Andrzej,<br />
<br />
> PI and PA are for different purposes.<br />
> PA are for ISP's, who give ip's for customers.<br />
<br />
Yes, this is great theory.<br />
<br />
In fact people ask - why I have to pay for LIR? PI is cheaper for me. I will use IPs as I need. <br />
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.
<div>
<div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<div><br />
> Then - PI owner with /24 block would pay 100E. And ISP with /18 would pay 64 *100E = 6400E ? :)<br />
<br />
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.<br />
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>--<br />
Aleksei</div>
<br />
04.08.2014 12:37 - Andrzej Dopierała написал(а):
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt" type="cite">
<div>PI and PA are for different purposes.<br />
PA are for ISP's, who give ip's for customers.<br />
I cooperate with two ip owners.<br />
One - is ISP. Give ip, block of ip for customers (on lans, in collocations etc). It's LIR.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
And need stable ip's, because changing ip's in customers is extremaly hardly (they have ipsecs, firewalls etc).<br />
Here is used PI class.<br />
<br />
I think puting both ip owners in one bag is misteake. First - use thousands of ip's. For second - /24 is enought forever.<br />
<br />
Paying by both common "lir fee" would be unfair.<br />
<br />
If we want to be fair - why not pay for every used ip? why shouldn't pay 100E every /24 block?<br />
<br />
Then - PI owner with /24 block would pay 100E. And ISP with /18 would pay 64 *100E = 6400E ? :)<br />
<br />
W dniu 04.08.2014 10:14, LeaderTelecom Ltd. pisze:</div>
<div cite="mid:1407140049.456336.452477687.538390.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru" style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt" type="cite"> </div>
</div>
Hello all,<br />
<br />
I don't support this proposal.<br />
<br />
This is Pandora's box. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
LIR's will be in much worse situation than owners of PI-networks.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
--<br />
Aleksei Ivanov<br />
LeaderTelecom<br />
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm
0cm 0cm 4.0pt" type="cite"><br />
On 28 Jul 2014, at 20:18, Gert Doering <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gert@space.net" target="_blank"><gert@space.net></a> wrote:<br />
<br />
> Dear AP WG,<br />
><br />
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:58:51AM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote:<br />
>> The draft document for the proposal described in 2014-02,<br />
>> "Allow IPv4 PI transfer" has been published. The impact analysis<br />
>> that was conducted for this proposal has also been published.<br />
>><br />
>><br />
>> You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at:<br />
>><br />
>> <a href="https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02" target="_blank" title="https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02">https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02</a><br />
>><br />
>> and the draft document at:<br />
>><br />
>> <a href="https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02/draft" target="_blank" title="https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02/draft">https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02/draft</a><br />
><br />
><br />
> We could use a bit more input on this proposal. We have one clear<br />
> statement of support, and one mail that puts up some questions while not<br />
> taking a clear pro/con position - and that is not enough to declare<br />
> anything except "needs more time" at the end of review phase.<br />
><br />
> So, tell me your thoughts, please.<br />
><br />
> thanks,<br />
><br />
> Gert Doering,<br />
> APWG chair<br />
><br />
><br />
> Gert Doering<br />
> -- NetMaster<br />
> --<br />
> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?<br />
><br />
> SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard<br />
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann<br />
> D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)<br />
> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279<br />
</div>
<pre>
--
Regards,
Andrzej 'The Undefined' Dopierała
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://andrzej.dopierala.name/" target="_blank">http://andrzej.dopierala.name/</a>
</pre></body></html>