[ncc-services-wg] Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme
Daniel Kleeman daniel.kleeman at bridgepartners.co.uk
Thu Aug 4 20:05:13 CEST 2011
I strongly agree that there is no logic in charging larger operators less per IP than smaller operators. To do so would be an incentive for operators to hog more IPs, not fewer. If there is to be a charge (which I do not support) then it should be a flat rate. Daniel Kleeman Bridge Partners GB -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Paolo Di Francesco Sent: 04 August 2011 14:44 To: Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst Cc: Florian Weimer; members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme Hi all, I disagree with this approach for two reasons: 1) the IPv4 resource is a scarse resourse therefore, the more you request/use the MORE you pay (and not the LESS you pay). So I support the following approach: /8=0.490 and /22=0.002 2) if the big operators have no economical incentive to adopt IPv6 (see point 1) we will still be working ONLY in IPv4 for the years to come. I really do not see any reason why a big operator (=big money) should pay less than a small operator. My concern is that: a) the fact that IPv4 is going to be exausted in the near future will make a commercial discrimination between who can give IPv4 addresses to customers and who cannot, we need a quick adoption of IPv6 from the big operators. b) malicious big operators do not want to implement IPv6 because the allocation of Ipv4 makes them stronger than newcomers (who will have NEW IPv4 addresses in 2014?) Just my 2 euro cents. > On 2011-08-03 15:31, Florian Weimer wrote: >> I don't think RIPE NCC is in a position to establish an address space >> tax. Existing fees are there to cover administrative costs and other >> RIPE activities, not as an incentive for address space conservation. > It is NOT a tax... The EUR 0.002/IP "fee" is way to low to promote > address space conservation. RIPE has 49 /8 assigned by IANA, being > some 800M IP addresses. So the annual costs PER IP address in the RIPE > region are EUR 0.018/(IP*year), *10-times* more than the EUR 0.002 - > the 2010 budget of RIPE being EUR 15M. And no, it's not even unfair to > the big player. > > Costs per IP (and year) in my proposal: > > /22 0.490 > /21 0.441 > /20 0.319 > /19 0.210 > /18 0.130 > /17 0.078 > /16 0.046 > /15 0.027 > /14 0.016 > /13 0.010 > /12 0.006 > /11 0.004 > /10 0.003 > /9 0.003 > /8 0.002 > > Best regards, > > wiwi > > ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members > Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: > http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > First click on General and then click on Edit. > At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. -- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses.