Gert, On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 04:22:50PM +0100, Martin Millnert wrote:
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.
... but backfires if you have a particularily fast or slow IPRA... since these are humans with differing background, your request might hit one IPRA that has very much or very little experience on the way *you* want to roll out your network... or extra curiosity adding more e-mail rounds... so I'm not sure this can be done in a way that would be considered "fair".
Just throwing concerns around.
They're fair concerns and does point to a perhaps greater issue: that variance of IPRA's can be that high that it makes a big difference. The system is right now not optimized towards per-hour billing for applications, etc, however, so it's hard to conclude what the variance would be in that situation.
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* :)
Ah, understood. So the yearly cost would be identically for everybody, and the initial request is billed for "the real cost caused by it". Right?
Well, identical for everybody using the IP registry services - yes. :) Cheers, Martin