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/[email protected]/
[members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Tue Apr 18 22:46:33 CEST 2023
Hi, On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 09:07:08PM +0200, Maximilian Wilhelm wrote: > If that's the argument here, than we should also introduce a charge for > IPv6 resources because all of the above applies there too. It's not a > scarce resource but we should keep track of it, and if it's not used it > should be returned, no? Already in place - IPv6 resources are either PI (50 EUR/piece charge exists) or PA, tied to LIR accounts, with LIR fees. (Yes, there is no *extra* fee for IPv6 PA blocks, and I think that's a feature - the goals "keep track of resources" and "incentivize *end users* to return resources they no longer need" are both met) [..] > > I've never done the math on "how does this influence the NCC budget?" - but > > assuming some 20.000 "RIPE" ASNs out there, and also assuming 50 EUR/year, > > this would be a million EUR/year, which otherwise would have to be part > > of the member fees. So, while this was explicitly never my intention > > ("lower our member fees by making other people pay for their ASN"), it > > does have an effect - ASN fees and PI fees can be billed "onwards" toward > > the customer, while the regular LIR fee is "mine to keep"... > > Well the financial bit is another conversation. I've seen a lot of push > back here on increasing the fees and it seems a lot of folks would > rather like to see where spending could be reduced. But let's keep those > conversations separate. Indeed, that's a separate conversation. But if we do have agreement on some sort of NCC budget, the question remains "how is that budget financed", and "fee for ASNs" would inevitably lower the LIR fees (and vice versa), to reach the same total budget. TANSTAAFL :-) - if you want ASNs to be free, the money needs to come from somewhere else. (Reducing the budget will still not make things "free for all") Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20230418/f9c8bbeb/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]