[members-discuss] LIR’s billing issues with RIPE NCC, need support

>
> I suggest RIPE NCC do correct accounting for each LIR for the time this
> LIR instance exists. If LIR has annual billing - then RIPE NCC should
> use it. If LIR selected quarterly billing - RIPE NCC show use. But RIPE
> NCC should not overcharge LIRs for the time they didn't give any
> services for LIR instance.
>

In fact, RIPE should probably suggest using two-year payment period
for a first-time payment to address the issue you are probably quite
aware for and which is transparently referred many times through many
threads started by different people. The amount of businesses which
would have to cease operations over two-year span from taking the LIR
role is quite negligible and raising the bar as twice as much for this
moment should keep most people who like to take chunks from last /8
away simply because operational cost for transfers of these poor /24
will become too high and this part of activities, which is observed
primarily in ex-CIS areas would become barely profitable.

At least some people in the list may wonder why this kind of
discussions are still taking a huge part of the conversation volumes,
but the answer is simple - there is too many entry-level providers (I
prefer to not use word 'ghetto-' to avoid possible insults) who are
simply not capable to build decent v6-capable infrastructure because
capital investments for the first-market hardware are beyond their
capabilities for a given network topology or bandwidth demands. These
ones are not strictly evil, but they are creating significant demand
among others for small v4 chunks and conversation like this one is
just a reflection of this demand. Since RIPE is not an organization
whose purpose is a development or advertisement of an opensource
sofrware stack which, to certain extent, could help third-market users
to adopt v6 addressing (including accelerated CGNAT/routing and
whatnot), the only one measures which possibly could be taken are
restrictive ones.