[members-discuss] New Charging Scheme

Andrey,

I am not about increasing expenses for IPv4 holders (M/S). I am
  not about decreasing expenses for L. I'm just trying to say that
  I don't believe that any attempts for "IPv6 stimulation" by means of
  *charging scheme* could be successful. IP transit operators can easily
  implement IPv6 (because they are "ready") almost right now,
  but broadband providers will deploy IPv6 according to their internal
  processes of access network upgrade and billing upgrade (much slower
  and more expensive). Aren't we say the same things?

Okay, I'll say it in other words. If our company were not already being
  deploy IPv6 on transit and access levels, will we start to look into
  IPv6 because IPv4 doubles(triples) in price? Well, no. Price is not a point
  at all, it's irrelevant. The point is *shortage*, and that's my only idea
  for this messages. Again, the only thing I was talking about is IPv6
  deployment stimulus in the context of the charging scheme.

But for now, I this idea should be considered off-topic here. Thanks.

--
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: Andrey Semenchuk <andrey at trifle.net>
To: Ivan M Makarenko <I.Makarenko at zsttk.ru>
Date: Tue Aug 09 2011 13:31:42 GMT+0700

> Ivan M Makarenko wrote:
>> 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.
> You can't popularize IPv6 by volitional action. It's the wrong way. The 
> broadband operators bear much more expenses than transit operators (and 
> there's no no contradiction here with your letter). And even when you 
> understand that the broadband operators bear much more expenses you 
> still call comunity to increase their expences for IPv4 resources??
> 
> In this case the only goal for for increasing expences for IPv4 
> resources may be the removal of competitors: expenses will be raised for 
> SMALL/MEDIUM but be decreased for the LARGE. It's not the way IPv6 
> deployment should go. And many of members try to pay attention for this 
> (but I think they have no chance to affect on this because we have (and 
> had, and will have) a lobby of LAGRE's)
> 
> 
>> Don't get me wrong and don't blame me as an "LARGE snob" - 
> But the acts are opposite with the words
> 
> 
>> -------- 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===
>>
>> ----
>> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss
>> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the 
>> general page:
>> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
>>
>> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From 
>> here, you can add or remove addresses.
> 
>