[members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100501001154] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments
Michiel Klaver m.klaver at luna.nl
Wed Oct 5 17:22:06 CEST 2011
Hi Sven, This idea is just an expansion of Erik Bais' flat-fee proposal, a flat fee for all members plus an extra fee per registered object. This would fulfill NCC's wish to lower the costs for small LIRs who have only a few objects. As side effect it could slow-down those LIRs who 'give away' a PI /24 for each colo rack they sell. Registering large amounts of small objects then won't be profitable anymore. And it could accelerate the adoption of ipv6, as it mostly requires just 1 object. With kind regards, Michiel Klaver At Wed, 5 Oct 2011 15:04:33 +0000, Sven Olaf Kamphuis <sven at cb3rob.net> wrote: > those "big amounts of inetnum objects" however are usually subnets of > /16 , /15, /14 or even /8's so that won't change -much-. > > its not like they have significantly more objects, its just that they >have > larger ones. > > i'd say, like erik bais, flat-fee, and forget about this overhead. > > (oh and get rid of policy 2007-01 as a LIR is -supposed to be- an office > that hands out ip space (registers pi for its customers)... policy >2007-01 > is a pain in the butt ;) > > i'm more for scrapping the concept of PA space than for making it > difficult to get PI for your customers. > > and "omg ipv4 will run out".. well ipv4 runs out anyway. > lets get it over with.