[members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Board Reasoning
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Board Reasoning
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Board Reasoning
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Radu-Adrian Feurdean
ripe-ncc at radu-adrian.feurdean.net
Fri Apr 19 14:22:46 CEST 2019
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019, at 18:19, Christian Kaufmann wrote: > The board's thinking in making the Option B proposal is that every > registry entry consumes resources such as customer support time, > database memory, registration time, etc. regardless of the size of the > allocation. A /24 and a /12 are not so different in this regard so we Hi, I only partly agree. Database-wise it is only valid at allocation-by-NCC time. A /24 can further generate up to 256 inetnums, supposing somebody crazy/motivated enough to create an inetnum object for every IP address (if that's even possible). A /12 can further generate a lot more inetnum objects, 4096 if the average size of a declared object is a /24. Obviously, this only applies for "ALLOCATED PA"/"ALLOCATED BY RIR", which can contain more specific "assignments". So the fact that all allocations are the same is open to some more debate. But I do understand the idea behind the rest of the argument for "option B". -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Board Reasoning
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Board Reasoning
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]