[members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024

On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 04:16:42PM +0000, Kaj Niemi wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Well. It’s slightly different but…. I think the real issue at hand is still that topline is made to fit the projected – the word “intended” comes to mind – budget.
> 
> A "normal" LIR, which I would imagine there are many of amongst the membership, with:
> 
> 
> 
>   *   an IPv4 /21 assigned 20-ish years ago
>   *   an IPv4 /22 assigned from 185/8
>   *   one ASN
>   *   one IPv6 /32 assigned 20-ish years ago because they truly believed IPv6 is superior in all aspects and everyone would rush to deploy it immediately


Hi

According to data from Appendix 1 of Model A charging scheme, there is
only 9.5 % of such 'normal' LIRs, while 46.7 % LIRs has just one /22,
so it is clearly advantageous variant for median LIR (as 6.2 % LIRs
has just one /23).

So my image of 'normal' LIR is someone who did not bother to become LIR
in the past, just used LIR services of its upstream, but when noticed
that it cannot get more addresses that way anymore, it becomes LIR
itself.


> As I would like to seem as constructive dude rather than like the angry
> guy who likes to publicly disagree on members-discuss on the stuff you
> guys intend to spend money on, I propose the following. That RIPE NCC
> would email, well before the RIPE GM, the technical and billing contacts
> of each LIR, the pre-calculated numbers for the proposed three charging
> models for the 2024 billing cycle. Please do include a mention of the
> budgetary increase in that communication.

I think that would be a great idea.

-- 
Ondrej 'Santiago' Zajicek (email: santiago at crfreenet.org)
"To err is human -- to blame it on a computer is even more so."