[members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion

On 24/07/2012 20:38, Rob Golding wrote:
> If we're going to "accelerate"the acceptance of IPv6 (which is in all of our
> interests) then anyone using PI IPv4 _probably_ needs some PI IPv6
> 
> If you're going to charge then for both you put an artificial barrier
> (doubling their cost), and they'll never want the v6 ...

Have you considered that one hour of engineering time would probably cost a
company ~€150 - €300, including overheads?  So your argument is that a cost
equivalent to 10 minutes of engineering time for a company is too much for
the company to bear if they want a provider independent v6 presence on the
Internet.

I'd respectfully suggest that if an organisation views €50 / annum as a
serious barrier to adoption of a technology which is important to their
business success, then that organisation has severe priority inversion
problems.

>> There should be a differentiation in charge depending on assignment size,
>> e.g. a /18 is charged more than a /24.
> 
> Why ?
> 
> What more work is there for RIPE to do ?

e.g. requests outside an assignment window.

Can I suggest you read the RIPE Annual Report for 2011?  It gives a
breakdown of the annual expenditure for the company, including the
registration services costs.

>> There is no need to charge for ASNs. 
> 
> 16bit ASNs are equally in short supply, and the majority of deployed routers
> don't understand longer ASNs

Intermediate routers don't need to understand ASN32 because that's handled
by clever translation stuff.  Edge routers which use an ASN32 as the local
asn do need to understand ASN32 natively, but this support has been
available on all cisco ios based platforms since 2009 and all juniper
platforms since 2008.  If you're running software this old on your transit
routers, you have bigger problems.

Nick