[members-discuss] New Charging Scheme

Let me describe the situation from my point of view.

I think that it is not LARGE members who must be putting forward to
  deploy IPv6, but exactly a MEDIUM/SMALL. Assuming LARGE members as
  a (mostly) IP transit operators and M/S as a broadband access, we
  get an exactly "IPv6 chicken-and-the-egg" problem. In our region,
  we have enough IPv6 transit operators (most of whom are LARGE),
  but *no* broadband access IPv6 providers. As I see, providing pure IPv6
  transit is much more easy/cheap than deploying broadband access IPv6
  networks - and that's the main issue. Well, if we will reduce IPv4
  cost for small holders and increase it for large ones, we'll get
  nothing in terms of "IPv6 popularization". There still will be
  empty pipes and no content.

Don't get me wrong and don't blame me as an "LARGE snob" - I consider
  wiwi model/proposal as fair, but I don't think it could be an elixir for
  IPv6 development. It is the shortage of IPv4 space that will be the
  reason, not the "price of IPv4" (and the IPv4 black markets, if any,
  will regulate themselves).

--
Best regards,
  Ivan M.Makarenko, Head of Internet technologies division, R&D Department.
  JSC "Zap-SibTranstelecom", Novosibirsk, Russia



-------- Original Message  --------
Subject: Re:[members-discuss] New Charging Scheme
From: DegNet GmbH - Hostmaster <hostmaster at degnet-gmbh.de>
To: members-discuss at ripe.net
Date: Mon Aug 08 2011 20:09:38 GMT+0700

> Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote Saturday, August 06, 2011 3:14 PM
>> a flatrate billing model and ditching that 2007-01 policy would indeed,
>> be preferred over more complex methods.
>>
> 
> I would also prefer a Flatfee for every RIPE member including all services without any "discrimination" (like PI assignment fee, extra pricing for additional ASN, ...) in combination with a price per IPv4 address for LIRs holding more than /12 addresses.
> 
> As extra large members control the core Internet infrastructure and do profit in a large scale from the current infrastructure these companies should have a strong motivation on putting forward the IPv6 deployment.
> 
> The current charging scheme results in the opposite in my opinion: Large and extra large RIPE members currently do not seem to have any motivation to move forward to IPv6 as they currently benefit the most from the sneaking shortage of IPv4 resources on holding most of these (resources and reserves) by now.
> 40k or 0,00236...€ per IP (wiwi proposal) are less than peanuts for extra large companies.
> 
> 0,02-0,05€ per IP for extra large members sounds more reasonable for me and should lead to a strong step toward IPv6, soon.
> The funds of this charge for extra large IPv4 resource holders could be spend purposive on IPv6 deployment.
> 
> -Florian
> 
> !��'����+yǢ��j)l~�&�� �
> )�����جr�,����x%��i��zZ �{hʋ�,�O��Z��
���jw`��-��
��ږ��zm����*颻Z���zw���z�����)brJ'ح�"�E׭j)l�w^�+����m�Lj)b������z������]��ޚ��i�kz�
s===