<html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">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: </div> <blockquote cite="mid:1407140049.456336.452477687.538390.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru" type="cite"> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"> 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 <div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt" type="cite"> On 28 Jul 2014, at 20:18, Gert Doering <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gert@space.net"><gert@space.net></a> 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: >> >> <a moz-do-not-send="true" 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> >> >> and the draft document at: >> >> <a moz-do-not-send="true" 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> > > > 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 </div> </blockquote> <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- Regards, Andrzej 'The Undefined' Dopierała <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://andrzej.dopierala.name/">http://andrzej.dopierala.name/</a> </pre> </body> </html>