Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignments from the last /8)
* Emilio Madaio
The draft document for the proposal described in 2012-04 has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published
In principle, I support this proposal. Reserving the last /8 to the «LIR clique» is unfair to End Users who are not LIRs, but who may very well have an equally justifiable demand for IPv4 addresses as any LIR. In fact, I feel that the proposal does not go far enough - in my opinion, both LIRs and End Users should be able to get the same amount of address space from the last /8. I note that in the APNIC region, LIRs and End Users can both get up to a /22 from the last /8. I would prefer it if this was the case in the RIPE region as well. That said, I do fear the practical consequences of this proposal. As the possibility to get PA assignments will be dwindling, End Users may look to PI (quite possibly guided there by their ISP who can be a sponsoring LIR). The current difference in pricing between PI and PA address space is a key element of my worry here - a PI assignment costs €50/year, while becoming a LIR and getting the PA /22 would under the proposed 2012 charging scheme cost €1750 (€1000 sign-up fee + €750 yearly fee). In other words, acquiring PA address space is almost nine times as expensive as PI address space. Furthermore End Users may feel it compelling to set up several legal organisations in order to acquire multiple PI assignments from the last /8. This problem is nothing new - under the current policy, an organisation may set up multiple LIRs and receive multiple /22s from the last /8, but the expense of RIPE NCC membership is likely balancing out the cost/benefit assessment. The cost of PI address space, on the other hand, is too small to be a disincentive. I also note that the Impact Analysis warns that this policy may lead to increased fees for members, which would be an undesirable consequence. I don't feel that the members should be sponsoring the non-members; equal access to addresses from the last /8 should mean equal monetary contribution to the NCC. So to sum up - I feel that PI assignments should be allowed from the last /8. However, if they are, I strongly feel that they should be priced more or less the same (per address) as getting an allocation from the last /8 through first becoming an LIR. That said, I don't know if APWG have any influence on the NCC's charging scheme at all. Is it possible for this policy to say something along the lines of «joining the NCC and obtaining a PA allocation from the last /8 should cost approximately the same per address as obtaining a PI assignment from the last /8»? Is that in scope of address policy? (Just to be clear: I am not stating neither support or opposition to the proposal.) -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com
Hi Tore, The cost for services is something that isn't discussed on the APWG, but on the member-discuss mailinglist. Cost changes are to be decided in the (RIPE meeting) AGM meeting and the current cost for a LIR sign-up is 2000 euro setup and 1300 yearly maintenance. It is not possible to change the cost for LIR sponsored PI via a policy.
I also note that the Impact Analysis warns that this policy may lead to increased fees for members, which would be an undesirable consequence. I don't feel that the members should be sponsoring the non-members; equal access to addresses from the last /8 should mean equal monetary contribution to the NCC.
Does that mean that you want the sponsored PI assignments get the same cost as a direct assignment (1300 euro yearly maintenance per object) ? Snip from your email:
In principle, I support this proposal.
(Just to be clear: I am not stating neither support or opposition to the proposal.)
Which one is it? Regards, Erik Bais
* Erik Bais
I also note that the Impact Analysis warns that this policy may lead to increased fees for members, which would be an undesirable consequence. I don't feel that the members should be sponsoring the non-members; equal access to addresses from the last /8 should mean equal monetary contribution to the NCC.
Does that mean that you want the sponsored PI assignments get the same cost as a direct assignment (1300 euro yearly maintenance per object) ?
Yes, something along those lines would be good. BTW: This would, as I understand it, be in the same ballpark as what you would have to pay if you want a PI assignment from APNIC's last /8.
Snip from your email:
In principle, I support this proposal.
(Just to be clear: I am not stating neither support or opposition to the proposal.)
Which one is it?
Neither. I haven't made up my mind yet, so I'm thinking out loud... -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com
Hi Tore,
I also note that the Impact Analysis warns that this policy may lead to increased fees for members, which would be an undesirable consequence. I don't feel that the members should be sponsoring the non-members; equal access to addresses from the last /8 should mean equal monetary contribution to the NCC.
Does that mean that you want the sponsored PI assignments get the same cost as a direct assignment (1300 euro yearly maintenance per object) ?
Yes, something along those lines would be good.
Perhaps an easier way of dealing with something like a price point or cost in that case, is to not allow LIR Sponsored IPv4 PI from the last /8. Which would result in only having the option of either becoming a LIR or sign a direct end-user agreement with RIPE. Regards, Erik
Hi, On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 09:46:55AM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
That said, I don't know if APWG have any influence on the NCC's charging scheme at all. Is it possible for this policy to say something along the lines of «joining the NCC and obtaining a PA allocation from the last /8 should cost approximately the same per address as obtaining a PI assignment from the last /8»? Is that in scope of address policy?
APWG can voice an opinion, but that has no legal binding - the fees are decided (voted!) by the paying members in the RIPE NCC general meeting (AGM). So while the NCC board may listen to us (and usually does), and propose a corresponding fee structure, if the members vote against it, APWG has no way to force anything. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi, On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 09:46:55AM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
That said, I do fear the practical consequences of this proposal. As the possibility to get PA assignments will be dwindling, End Users may look to PI (quite possibly guided there by their ISP who can be a sponsoring LIR). The current difference in pricing between PI and PA address space is a key element of my worry here - a PI assignment costs €50/year, while becoming a LIR and getting the PA /22 would under the proposed 2012 charging scheme cost €1750 (€1000 sign-up fee + €750 yearly fee). In other words, acquiring PA address space is almost nine times as expensive as PI address space.
I'm not sure wether the multihoming requirement is for piv4 or piv6, but i think this may help. Multihoming would raise the financial bar further, in that it needs more/other infrastructure to actually use the PI. OTOH i strongly suspect that the ease of setting up a lir and getting a flat /22 will outweigh the effort of setting up four organizations to get four (possibly split) /24 PI. If what other people suggest comes true (in terms of "selling ip space"), i also believe the financial expense of becoming lir will rather be a small value in the bigger equation. That said i feel the document should speak of "Direct Assignments", and not "Assignments to Endusers", because i dont see how the latter wording would not apply to ASSIGNED PA, also (even if it doesnt "make sense" to apply it that way) - it doesnt hurt to add the word, on the other hand it makes the intent more clear. (abstention) Rico MfG/regards, -- Rico Gloeckner Sr. System Engineer teamix GmbH Suedwestpark 35 90449 Nuernberg Amtsgericht Nuernberg, HRB 18320 Geschaeftsfuehrer: Oliver Kuegow, Richard Mueller
Hi, On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:29:14AM +0200, Rico Gloeckner wrote:
I'm not sure wether the multihoming requirement is for piv4 or piv6 [...]
Neither, actually. For IPv4, *if* you multihome, you can round up your address needs up to the next /24 boundary. If you're singlehomed, you have to document the need for the full /24, or you get a smaller network "needs based" (which might be sufficient to number some sort of corporate VPN DMZ or such, to be never routed on the public Internet). Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
* Tore Anderson
(Just to be clear: I am not stating neither support or opposition to the proposal.)
I've slept on it, and I support this proposal. Allowing End Users access to the last /8 is, in my opinion, "The Right Thing To Do". While I think the low cost of PI space compared to PA space is going to cause a high risk for abuse/circumvention of the "one piece each" restriction, this is ultimately something that needs to be solved outside of address policy. If a new version of the proposal is going to be spun, I have the following suggestions for modifications: 1) The proposal should «voice an opinion», as Gert put it, that the fees for obtaining a PI prefix from the last /8 should be comparable to obtaining a PA one through becoming a LIR. I hope that this would make it less likely that the "one piece each" restriction would be abused/circumvented - at least, not more likely than the current restriction being circumvented through multiple LIRs. 2) The /24 limit for assignments should be raised to /22. While the current proposal does reduce discrimination of End Users compared to LIRs, it does not remove it completely. I believe that "Doing The Right Thing" would be to make access to the last /8 completely equal, instead of continuing to give preferential treatment to LIRs. As I've pointed out earlier, both of those amendments would make the RIPE last /8 policy (and pricing) more aligned with APNIC's, which appears to work fine for them. They've used 8.7% of their last /8 over the 17 months it's been since they ran out. As I understand it, in their last /8 policy, assignments and allocations are both capped at /22. Regardless of it being an assignment or an allocation, it costs the same - and significantly more than the RIPE €50: http://www.apnic.net/services/become-a-member/how-much-does-it-cost http://submit.apnic.net/cgi-bin/feecalc.pl?ipv4=%2F22&ipv6=&action=Calculate Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com
participants (4)
-
Erik Bais -
Gert Doering -
Rico Gloeckner -
Tore Anderson