[address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Tue Oct 1 10:19:35 CEST 2013
Hi, On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 01:32:22AM +0200, Elvis Velea wrote: > Regarding the payment fees, we can not decide anything in this WG > anyway, I'd like to ask everyone to either hold on to this discussion > for the GM in Athens or open the discussion on the > members-discuss at ripe.net mailing list. Well. APWG can not *decide* on the charging scheme, but we can make reasonable proposals to the AGM - and if the addressing community agrees that something makes sense, the NCC board usually listens closely and works that into the next proposed charging scheme. We did that with 2007-01, and while it wasn't easy, it got done in the end. Now all sides have a bit more experience in listening to each other, so it might be easier this time :-) Anyway - what we need to be careful about is - do not make the price for "what used to be called PI holders" dramatically higher - technically, we might do this ("we vote, they pay"), but the signal this sends to the world is "we're a cartel and we've just decided that we all pay less and everyone else pays more", which is very likely to get us into deep shit with regulators, tax authorities, etc. - have the right incenctives here (e.g.: "a /32 costs 10000 EUR/year, a /48 costs 50 EUR/year" would send the message to ISPs "if you can number your network with a /48, you can save serious money!" and that will lead to "assigning customers a /64 or even less", which we don't want) So I think something like - every LIR pays a base fee ("one size fits all") which includes their initial /29.../32 ("as today") - every extra "small allocation" (smaller than /32) costs 50 EUR/year (+ 50 EUR/year per IPv4 PI) - every extra "big allocation" (/32 or shorter) costs 500 EUR/year would get us somewhere, without causing extra turmoil - for today's address holders, nothing much would change, and for future allocations, the financial incentives to go one way or other ("do not become LIR, get your /32 from a sponsoring LIR" and "run your whole ISP on a /48") are not significant enough to outweigh other reasons. Elvis, I think this is something which deserves it's own slide and 10 minutes of discussion at the APWG meeting :-) (and possibly other models for charging scheme and incentives), so we can then have input to the AGM for consideration... Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 306 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20131001/a160fc0d/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]