Hi Gert, On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 04:56:40PM +0200, Martin Millnert wrote:
On Fri, 2011-10-28 at 19:16 +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
* yearly recurring cost "per block of numbers", independent of size(!), reflecting the cost of handling the address space request, documentation, RIPE database, etc., which increase if you need "many blocks"
This was an interesting suggestion.
Going straight for the details of one point, I wonder, what's the most fair way to reflect the handling cost of an address space request?
I see your point, and I'm buy no way insisting on "every block costs the same".
Check. It looked like that (and I decided to bite).
The reason why I proposed to do it this way is to discourage large-scale ISPs from going for "we give all our customers a single /128 each, so we can run the whole country-wide network on a /48 and save lots of money!". We *want* them to give /56s (or such) to customers, and if there's a monetary penalty for doing so - is this the right message to send?
I'm not suggesting charge per block size either. :)
(OTOH, depending on the final numbers, the per-block-per-year price might be low enough to make this all uninteresting - if it's "50 EUR per /48, 100 EUR per /32, 200 EUR for /28 or bigger", the financial incentive is not that strong).
Agreed.
So I guess I disagree with your conclusion from the arguments you iterated over.
What about the "encourage ISPs to give end-users a reasonably-sized network" argument?
Good question.. Handle applications where users/customers are shown to be given /56s or larger, faster? (Ie. cheaper, according to below)
Out-of-the-box counter-proposal:
IPRA interacting work (including address space requests) == [IPRA hour fee] * [IPRA-time spent on application],
Pay per direct load on the hostmasters. This could encourage people having more clue interacting with the RIPE NCC and so on.
Infrastructure cost sharing (yearly recurring cost) == [RIPE NCC specific registry / IPRA related costs] ----------------------------------------- number of LIRs at billing year end (*)
I'm not sure I get that formula - are you dividing everything by number of LIRs, so everybody pays the same price? (Now that would be simple :) ).
Share *overhead* costs equally, yes. *shrug* :) Best, Martin