[members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016

> On 25 Mar 2015, at 02:45, rob.golding at astutium.com wrote:
> 
> It could be my memory failing, or that I misunderstood, but I thought (for want of a betterdescription) a per-resource charging scheme had been introduced - simply that the charge (initially, and proposed to continue) for an ASN was zero

Fellow members,

As a small lir, and an outsider to most of the RIPE daily discussions, there is something I fail to understand?

Why would there be a recurring fee per ASN, if there ins’t a recurring fee per (at least ipv4) PA block?

Imagine 3 lirs:  lirA, lirB and lirC who “own” these resources:

* lir A: 2 PI /23 blocks, 1 /21 PA v4, and 2 ASNs
* lir B: 2 PI /23 blocks, 3 /16 PA v4s and 1 ASN
* lir C: 0 PI blocks, 5 /12 PA v4s and 2 ASNs.

In the current scheme, lir C pays the same as lir A, and both pay more than lir B.

Is that what we think is fair?

In the proposed change (charge for ASNs as well), it gets even worse:

lir C would pay least of while, while lic C is the “biggest” LIR, and uses most of the available resources.

Maybe I am missing a point here, but it feels wierd to talk about charging per ASN, while the elephant in the room is that there is no charge for more or bigger PA blocks.

I understand the arguments for a “all members are equal” fee (I feel it it unfair, but I understand the arguments pro).
I understand the arguments for a “per per resources used” fee.

However, I do not understand the current system and the proposed changed.

Regards,

Frank Louwers
AS30961