[members-discuss] Re: New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Models: Feedback Required
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Re: New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Models: Feedback Required
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Re: New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Models: Feedback Required
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Xavier Beaudouin
kiwi at kazar.net
Tue Aug 2 10:58:25 CEST 2011
Hello, On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 22:35:16 +0200, Daniel Suchy wrote: > Hello, > can someone from RIPE NCC provide calculation similat to current > charging scheme (expected numbers of LIR members per category) and > number of affected LIRs with the change. I expect these numbers > already > exists in RIPE NCC and these was used for this proposal - there must > be > some source data for selecting member category based on IPv4 > callocations size in presented document. And these data should be > presented together with this proposar. +1 > I'm supporting this kind of simplification of LIR size calculation, > but > personally I feel that IPv4 allocations per category should be > changed. > There's disproportion between number of addresses and category - > organisations holding for example one milion addresses will pay only > double price, compared to organizations holding 65 thousand > addresses, > even is holding much more of resourcess. In terms of fairness - large > resource holders are favorized opposed to small ones. I think, > allocations per category should be considered to be more fair (that's > means up to /22 in XXS, /21 in XS, /20-/16 in S, /15-/12 in L > category... for example). My current feeling from presented model is, > that many currently small LIRs will fall to medium category, just due > to > this change. And, current minimal allocation for LIR is /21 > [*ripe509, > section 5.1] - that means, every new LIR will be automatically in > small > category (and new LIRs will pay more then) - and that's wrong in my > eyes. As Daniel, I like this kind of simplification of LIR size calculation. But I am XS, and I think I will go Small or Medium... (depending of the way it is calculated). Does the LIR size is calculated according to ripe allocation (e.g. if we have a /21 allocated, but on the real life there is only about /23 used) is based only about what is allocated or just the block given by RIPE ? > Also, current model of 50EUR per independent resource is quite clear > I > think it can remain in the new charging scheme. At least, proposed > model > two, where PI are charged I'm supporting. There should be some > regulation represented by additional "fee" for PI resources, as these > are sometimes misused by organisations expected to be a LIR (and > there're some organisations/LIRs activelly selling PI address space > as > their "service", charging much more [more than double] than they pay > for > the resource in RIPE). I second that, but other problem is limitation of number of AS. WTF if we have 5 AS and one /21 ? Do we go automatically from Small to Medium ? Since AS _IS_ independent resources, why there is limitation there ? Kind regards, Xavier
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Re: New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Models: Feedback Required
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Re: New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Models: Feedback Required
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]