[members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Prager-IT e.U.
contact at prager-it.com
Sun Jul 24 10:21:25 CEST 2016
On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Brandon Butterworth <brandon at bogons.net> wrote: > On Sun Jul 24, 2016 at 08:27:38AM +0200, Prager-IT e.U. wrote: > > Membership fee after we have switched to a per /24 system: 8,23 Euros per > > /24 per Year > > > > Therefore it is quite clear that we need to change the charging scheme > via > > majority vote to a per /24 system as supported by the numbers above. > > With membership fee based on number of /24 then members may decide > to also get one vote per /24. Would they vote for this scheme (do > they get their N*/24 votes before or after this vote...) > I don't understand what you are trying to say, each entity has one vote even if they have multiple LIR accounts under the same entity. > > The aim is for some smaller members (like us, so we'd win) to shift > the balance of cost to larger members? That sounds fine, however the > fees are hardly huge and if they can't afford them it sounds like > the business case for having a LIR is marginal, they'd be better > off money wise and dfz table size using an upstreams space. > We are not shifting any costs, we are just asking each member to pay their fair share for the amount of resources they are using. I am just calculating in terms of /24s as that is easiest to calculate to base the membership fee of. For example if you hold one /22 you will be charged, 4*8,23 Euros, 32,92 Euros per Year as you hold four /24s in size in total. 8,23 Euros per year per 256 IPv4 addresses is hardly a business case breaking amount of money. These changes will also bring a very real cost to super large LIRs that hold a ton of resources and may finally spark some meaningful IPv6 adoption. > > If the aim is to make it cheap enough they can go crazy taking > extra LIRs to get /22s then don't bother, that scheme was to > moderate demand and there'd likely be other measures introduced > to preserve that > > brandon > I don't understand what you are trying to say. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20160724/22fc58d6/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]