[members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion

Hi!

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Thomas Mangin <
thomas.mangin at exa-networks.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> I am assuming that IPv6 will continue to take longer than we all want to
> become the de-facto address family of the internet. For the moment, this is
> still were we are. If the reality of the internet is a world where IPv4s
> become a financial asset, and can be used for financial gain between
> LIR/organisation, it would be fair (as a membership organisation is about
> fairness) to have a price which reflect the value of the asset owed by
> every members. I know LIR do not own their IP space but if they are allowed
> to trade/rent it, I see little difference.
> Not doing so would give incumbent a commercial advantage and provide them
> no incentive to return the IPv4 they own (which could be used by
> newcomers/startups) and/or migrate to IPv6. I would welcome policies which
> would increase the price of owning IPv4 year over year.


I can see your point but it going back to "taxation" of IP resources. We
can discuss fairness of "taxes" put on whatever resource, which is not
really important here.

With pay-per-IP model we have two options: 1) We can set fee really high to
stimulate people to return their unused resources or even higher to force
people to deploy CGNs and redesign networks in order to return resources
that are currently in use. But if this ever happened, some people might
think that RIPE NCC has no right to put taxes on their resources. They can
continue operating their network without submitting to RIPE NCC authority,
without paying their RIPE NCC bills and without coordination and
registration services provided by RIPE NCC. This can lead to split of the
Internet or to dissolution of RIPE NCC and it could cause considerable
operational problems. 2) There is an option to set additional fee
relatively low, which is not going to have any effect on distribution of
scarce resources and then it does not make sense to use this
conservation/returning IPs argument in favor of this policy.

Anyway RIPE NCC is a "Network Coordination Centre", so I suggest to pay
them for coordination services and not for consumed resources.

Tomas

-- 
Tomáš Hlaváček
-------------------------------------------------
IGNUM s.r.o. | Vinohradská 190 | Praha 3 | 130 61
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20120725/75887a01/attachment.html>