This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/members-discuss@ripe.net/
[members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Brandon Butterworth
hostmaster at bogons.net
Wed Sep 21 15:51:46 CEST 2016
On Wed Sep 21, 2016 at 12:46:04PM +0000, Muntasir.Ali at newham.gov.uk wrote: > This is considering that many (not all) of the proposed "solutions" > may make it more expensive or infeasible for us to retain membership > were they implemented as described Some of those proposals were intended to make some give up their space as too expensive, in the hope that RIPE would get the space back and allocate it to them/others. Luckily you have legacy so can opt out > were RIPE to adopt a model based on size of IP address space, > then for us, it would make more sense to set up a new business > and register that as a brand new LIR without any IPv4 space, > and just ask for an IPv6 allocation. One of the reasons I declined the offer to convert legacy (on another, not for profit, LIR) to regular PA RIPE managed was I couldn't be sure there woulnd't be a crazy policy come up where I'd regret it. If you had taken their offer you could probably argue to rescind it based on unreasonable change of terms. With your legacy opted out you should be able to keep the current LIR and thus the current v6 space > Not that I expect it to work that way anyway (creating an LIR > with IPv6 allocation and no IPv4 allocation) That has to be possible as we're heading to a v6 only future. Today new entrants may use an upstreams v4 but start with their own v6 > that's simply not maintainable for RIPE if quite a large > number of organisations were to do this, and it may push > up costs for the members which do have IPv4 allocations. Should make no difference at all, current fees take no account of the space you use. > Which highlights another point - I've noticed there's been no > mention or consideration of size of IPv6 allocations when it > comes to charging models based on IP allocation. I presume > the general membership don't consider this an issue at > present due to the vast size of IPv6 address space? Current charging model is flat so it doesn't matter. Some are proposing it not be flat which does introduce such problems brandon
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]