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/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[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 18:44:48 CET 2011
Gert, On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 04:22:50PM +0100, Martin Millnert wrote: >> >> 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. > > ... but backfires if you have a particularily fast or slow IPRA... since > these are humans with differing background, your request might hit one > IPRA that has very much or very little experience on the way *you* want > to roll out your network... or extra curiosity adding more e-mail > rounds... so I'm not sure this can be done in a way that would be > considered "fair". > > Just throwing concerns around. They're fair concerns and does point to a perhaps greater issue: that variance of IPRA's can be that high that it makes a big difference. The system is right now not optimized towards per-hour billing for applications, etc, however, so it's hard to conclude what the variance would be in that situation. > >> >> 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* :) > > Ah, understood. So the yearly cost would be identically for everybody, > and the initial request is billed for "the real cost caused by it". Right? Well, identical for everybody using the IP registry services - yes. :) Cheers, 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 ]