[ncc-services-wg] Feature request

Denesh Bhabuta wrote:

> 
> On १६-०९-२००५, at ३:४७ अपराह्न,  Andre Koopal wrote:
> 
>> To be honest, I don't think it is resonable for the ISP to remove the
>> inetnum's from the RIPE db, as the customer 'owns' the resources.
> 
> 
> OK, let's say the ISP/LIR does the PI application etc for the  customer
> and agrees with the customer that he/she will be charged x  amount per
> year for the facility (seeing as ISP/LIR membership size  and membership
> fee depends on number of allocations

More precisely: on the size (amount of addresses, not number of transactions)
_and_ the age of the allocation/assignment. The formula is available somewhere.

I have to admit that I don't know _exactly_ how PI assignments do contribute
to the determination of an LIR's size category.

E.g. the few PI transactions we have made to support our customers are
insignificant - compared to the PA space we have to manage. That might be
different for other LIRs, although I doubt it, unless the PI mechanism is
misused (from an aggregation point of view).

> within LIR  membership so LIR quite
> rightly wants to recoup some of this cost).
> 
> So, if LIR no longer has any control over the PI space via any sort  of
> MNT, why should PI space still reside within LIR membership  'account'
> and continue contributing to membership size? Either ISP/ LIR should be
> able to remove PI Space from their membership or not be  indirectly
> charged for it.
> 
> Please correct me if I am wrong. :-)

That's a different story, and we can start to discuss this in itself.

Remember, an LIR is not required to offer that service. So unless you
see some sort of advantage offering it, you would probably not do it in
the 1st place, right?

> Regards
> Denesh

Wilfried.