[address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignments from the last /8)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignments from the last /8)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignments from the last /8)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Erik Bais
erik at bais.name
Tue Sep 11 10:27:29 CEST 2012
Hi Tore, >>> I also note that the Impact Analysis warns that this policy may lead >> >to increased fees for members, which would be an undesirable >> >consequence. I don't feel that the members should be sponsoring the >> >non-members; equal access to addresses from the last /8 should mean >> >equal monetary contribution to the NCC. > >> Does that mean that you want the sponsored PI assignments get the same >> cost as a direct assignment (1300 euro yearly maintenance per >> object) ? >Yes, something along those lines would be good. Perhaps an easier way of dealing with something like a price point or cost in that case, is to not allow LIR Sponsored IPv4 PI from the last /8. Which would result in only having the option of either becoming a LIR or sign a direct end-user agreement with RIPE. Regards, Erik
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignments from the last /8)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignments from the last /8)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]