[address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2014072901004581] 2014-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv4 PI transfer [...]
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2014072901004581] 2014-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv4 PI transfer [...]
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2014072901004581] 2014-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv4 PI transfer [...]
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Andrei Kushnireuski
noable at gmail.com
Mon Aug 4 11:04:37 CEST 2014
Everybody knows a lot of ISPs use PI at result of non-ideal IPv4 assignment policy from the RIPE NCC side. The single solution is to make PI cost = PA cost and allow ISP to move PI > PA without additional problems. -- Andrei Kushnireuski On 04 Aug 2014, at 10:54, LeaderTelecom Ltd. <info at leadertelecom.ru> wrote: > Dear Andrzej, > > > PI and PA are for different purposes. > > PA are for ISP's, who give ip's for customers. > > Yes, this is great theory. > > In fact people ask - why I have to pay for LIR? PI is cheaper for me. I will use IPs as I need. > I see a lot of requests for PI networks last month. They ready to pay for transfer one time and then pay very small money every year. > > > Then - PI owner with /24 block would pay 100E. And ISP with /18 would pay 64 *100E = 6400E ? :) > > I remember very long discussion about it ) We decided that each LIR is a member and we contribute same amount of money into RIPE. And it is logicaly. > > -- > Aleksei > > 04.08.2014 12:37 - Andrzej Dopierała написал(а): > PI and PA are for different purposes. > PA are for ISP's, who give ip's for customers. > I cooperate with two ip owners. > One - is ISP. Give ip, block of ip for customers (on lans, in collocations etc). It's LIR. > > Second - is voip provider. Need stable links from differend upstreams, with BGP. Don't give ip for cusomers. IP's are used only for own infrastructure - SIP proxy, registrars, application services, www with SSL, VPNS's etc. > > And need stable ip's, because changing ip's in customers is extremaly hardly (they have ipsecs, firewalls etc). > Here is used PI class. > > I think puting both ip owners in one bag is misteake. First - use thousands of ip's. For second - /24 is enought forever. > > Paying by both common "lir fee" would be unfair. > > If we want to be fair - why not pay for every used ip? why shouldn't pay 100E every /24 block? > > Then - PI owner with /24 block would pay 100E. And ISP with /18 would pay 64 *100E = 6400E ? :) > > W dniu 04.08.2014 10:14, LeaderTelecom Ltd. pisze: > > Hello all, > > I don't support this proposal. > > This is Pandora's box. > > To get 1024 IPs for now company can register LIR and pay to RIPE 2000 eur + 1600 eur annually. If same company will transfer PI, then they will pay to RIPE only 50 eur. > > LIR's will be in much worse situation than owners of PI-networks. > > We can apply proposal if we will increase payment for PI-networks after transfer. For example, 1000 eur annually for each PI resource. In this situation new LIRs and owners of PI-network will pay into RIPE NCC similar payments. > > -- > Aleksei Ivanov > LeaderTelecom > > > On 28 Jul 2014, at 20:18, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote: > > > Dear AP WG, > > > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:58:51AM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: > >> The draft document for the proposal described in 2014-02, > >> "Allow IPv4 PI transfer" has been published. The impact analysis > >> that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. > >> > >> > >> You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: > >> > >> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02 > >> > >> and the draft document at: > >> > >> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02/draft > > > > > > We could use a bit more input on this proposal. We have one clear > > statement of support, and one mail that puts up some questions while not > > taking a clear pro/con position - and that is not enough to declare > > anything except "needs more time" at the end of review phase. > > > > So, tell me your thoughts, please. > > > > thanks, > > > > Gert Doering, > > APWG chair > > > > > > Gert Doering > > -- NetMaster > > -- > > 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 > > > -- > Regards, > Andrzej 'The Undefined' Dopierała > http://andrzej.dopierala.name/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20140804/e90b5648/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2014072901004581] 2014-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv4 PI transfer [...]
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2014072901004581] 2014-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv4 PI transfer [...]
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]