[address-policy-wg] concept document: IPv6 PA/PI unification
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] concept document: IPv6 PA/PI unification
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] concept document: IPv6 PA/PI unification
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Martin Millnert
millnert at gmail.com
Mon Oct 31 16:22:50 CET 2011
Hi Gert, On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 04:56:40PM +0200, Martin Millnert wrote: >> On Fri, 2011-10-28 at 19:16 +0200, Gert Doering wrote: >> > * yearly recurring cost "per block of numbers", independent of size(!), >> > reflecting the cost of handling the address space request, documentation, >> > RIPE database, etc., which increase if you need "many blocks" >> >> >> This was an interesting suggestion. >> >> Going straight for the details of one point, I wonder, what's the most >> fair way to reflect the handling cost of an address space request? > > I see your point, and I'm buy no way insisting on "every block costs the > same". Check. It looked like that (and I decided to bite). > The reason why I proposed to do it this way is to discourage large-scale > ISPs from going for "we give all our customers a single /128 each, so > we can run the whole country-wide network on a /48 and save lots of > money!". We *want* them to give /56s (or such) to customers, and if > there's a monetary penalty for doing so - is this the right message to > send? I'm not suggesting charge per block size either. :) > (OTOH, depending on the final numbers, the per-block-per-year price > might be low enough to make this all uninteresting - if it's "50 EUR > per /48, 100 EUR per /32, 200 EUR for /28 or bigger", the financial > incentive is not that strong). Agreed. >> So I guess I disagree with your conclusion from the arguments you >> iterated over. > > What about the "encourage ISPs to give end-users a reasonably-sized > network" argument? Good question.. Handle applications where users/customers are shown to be given /56s or larger, faster? (Ie. cheaper, according to below) >> Out-of-the-box counter-proposal: >> IPRA interacting work (including address space requests) == >> [IPRA hour fee] * [IPRA-time spent on application], Pay per direct load on the hostmasters. This could encourage people having more clue interacting with the RIPE NCC and so on. >> Infrastructure cost sharing (yearly recurring cost) == >> [RIPE NCC specific registry / IPRA related costs] >> ----------------------------------------- >> number of LIRs at billing year end (*) > > I'm not sure I get that formula - are you dividing everything by > number of LIRs, so everybody pays the same price? (Now that would be > simple :) ). Share *overhead* costs equally, yes. *shrug* :) Best, Martin
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] concept document: IPv6 PA/PI unification
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] concept document: IPv6 PA/PI unification
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]