[lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ?
Tue Nov 26 11:49:27 CET 2002
> Well - they did. The mandate on the NCC was "make sure that LIRs are > properly trained so they can do their job well" (which costs quite some > money). Usually this is mainly paid by the "new LIR fees" - which is > a reasonable approach - but this year there were much less new LIRs > than planned in the budget, so there was a net loss. I wholeheartedly agree with training being a core activity. It reduces the workload in the long term by not requiring quite so much handholding later. I am not against spending money - maybe I have been misunderstood. Again. > I think it's reasonable that the NCC plans with higher fees to ensure that > they do not run the risk of going bankrupt - which would be a catastrophe - > or that they have to significantly reduce expenses like "training" - which > is something the LIR community has been explicitely asking for. OK. I have *not* had time since recieving the invoice yesterday to go and read every budget report and annual report issued in 2002. I will. I cannot comment on this directly, but I will go and look at how the costs break down and formulate more informed opinions shortly. In the meanwhile I have asked (too late for bureaucrats probably, but I must try) to be invoiced quarterly, as this outrageous increase screws my cashflow for the next year. I am *not* in this for business or profit - like I have said I am supporting a leftover, legacy network and not-quite breaking even. > (Of course the "training" thing is just an example - but I still feel > they are doing a reasonable job, and the costs are still in the range > that they don't overload a commercial ISP's budget. For a non-commercial > network and non-educational network, one has to face the question "is it > necessary to be a LIR?") For the last question, and for my circumstances, yes. There is not other way to get independent access to AS number(s) and address space. I have been royally screwed in the past (in different jobs, mind) by ISPs using the PA renumbering 'costs' to force retention of otherwise un-economic business. In terms of resilience - if that is your chosen route - BGP is essential, even if at the moment my specific circumstances dictate that I only have one puclic upstream (my private peering is my own affair). Relying on a 'foreign' LIR to issue and maintain an as-num or other RIPE objects is too risky. So, in my opinion, the RIPE fees have been worth the reduction of risk. Maybe now it is changing. I will be looking into the process of mergers and acquisitions through RIPE to see if there is a goal I can pursue to become an ex-LIR (much to the relief of some I suspect). Peter
[ lir-wg Archive ]