[members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016, at 11:40, HOSTLINE wrote:
> Old LIR's and/or those with legacy IPv4 blocks paying the same amount of 
> money as new LIR's - the current billing scheme, *
> but if* RIPE NCC recover some IPv4 pools or gets recovered from IANA, 
> they can allocate for LIR's that have only /22 new /22, or /23 
> (depending on resources avail).
>
> Using FIFO model, oldest LIR's with only 1 /22 will get second 
> allocation. Rules could be also that for example, you can't get second 
> assignment in first 2 years when you get first one.
> 
> If LIR's who has only /22 and never used transfer services, i.e. they 
> have only this allocation of IPv4 they are eligible for second /22 or 
> /23, maybe even /24.
> If LIR who has /22 and bought/transferred  IPv4 - are not eligible.

Don't remember having your name on the list of supporters of 2015-05
(which was supposed to do something very similar). :)

> Because now  a lot of  people registering (2nd, 3rd, etc) LIR's for only 
> one goal - after two years to make a transfer to parent LIR. In such a 
> case - if you know, that even *maybe* you have a chance to get IPv4 
> allocation after 2 years - it may worth waiting and not spending money, 
> abusing RIPE NCC with paper work on LIR's registration, etc.

Please have a look at the thread concerning 2015-05 on Address Policy
Working Group. You can get an insight on how things work (or not).

-- 
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
(co-proposer of 2015-05)