[members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100501001154] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments

Hi Sven,

This idea is just an expansion of Erik Bais' flat-fee proposal, a flat fee
for all members plus an extra fee per registered object. This would
fulfill NCC's wish to lower the costs for small LIRs who have only a few
objects.

As side effect it could slow-down those LIRs who 'give away' a PI /24 for
each colo rack they sell. Registering large amounts of small objects then
won't be profitable anymore. And it could accelerate the adoption of ipv6,
as it mostly requires just 1 object.


With kind regards,
Michiel Klaver



At Wed, 5 Oct 2011 15:04:33 +0000, Sven Olaf Kamphuis <sven at cb3rob.net>
wrote:

> those "big amounts of inetnum objects" however are usually subnets of
> /16 , /15, /14 or even /8's so that won't change -much-.
> 
> its not like they have significantly more objects, its just that they
>have 
> larger ones.
> 
> i'd say, like erik bais, flat-fee, and forget about this overhead.
> 
> (oh and get rid of policy 2007-01 as a LIR is -supposed to be- an office
> that hands out ip space (registers pi for its customers)... policy
>2007-01 
> is a pain in the butt ;)
> 
> i'm more for scrapping the concept of PA space than for making it
> difficult to get PI for your customers.
> 
> and "omg ipv4 will run out".. well ipv4 runs out anyway.
> lets get it over with.