another way to achieve the original motives of post-exhaustion policy
I just had a thought. What we're trying to do is to make sure there are IPv4 addresses available to new entrants. We're trying to do this by making a LIR get one post-exhaustion /22 each. The LIR fee is the limiting factor in trying to stop people from getting many /22:s. People have been trying to game this, by getting /22 and closing the LIR, thus avoiding the LIR fee. Changes in the policy has been all about trying to limit transfers etc, setting policy from what should happen with /22s, stopping transfers (so people still have to pay LIR fees, one per /22 etc). Since it's actually the post-exhaustion /22 we're after why not do this: The post-exhaustion /22 comes with a fee that is equivalent to the LIR fee. If a LIR contains one post-exhaustion /22, then this fee is waived. Doesn't this just solve the problem everybody is arguing about? Now all of a sudden it's not cheap to get multiple /22s, and we don't care any more if people keep their LIRs open or not, it still costs the same. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
Hello, I think this was discussed during the last RIPE meeting and it was rejected by Nigel due to not being "legal" to raise fees like this. Regards, Radu On 06/21/2016 12:20 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
I just had a thought.
What we're trying to do is to make sure there are IPv4 addresses available to new entrants. We're trying to do this by making a LIR get one post-exhaustion /22 each. The LIR fee is the limiting factor in trying to stop people from getting many /22:s. People have been trying to game this, by getting /22 and closing the LIR, thus avoiding the LIR fee. Changes in the policy has been all about trying to limit transfers etc, setting policy from what should happen with /22s, stopping transfers (so people still have to pay LIR fees, one per /22 etc).
Since it's actually the post-exhaustion /22 we're after why not do this:
The post-exhaustion /22 comes with a fee that is equivalent to the LIR fee. If a LIR contains one post-exhaustion /22, then this fee is waived.
Doesn't this just solve the problem everybody is arguing about? Now all of a sudden it's not cheap to get multiple /22s, and we don't care any more if people keep their LIRs open or not, it still costs the same.
Hi Mikael,
I just had a thought.
What we're trying to do is to make sure there are IPv4 addresses available to new entrants. We're trying to do this by making a LIR get one post-exhaustion /22 each. The LIR fee is the limiting factor in trying to stop people from getting many /22:s. People have been trying to game this, by getting /22 and closing the LIR, thus avoiding the LIR fee. Changes in the policy has been all about trying to limit transfers etc, setting policy from what should happen with /22s, stopping transfers (so people still have to pay LIR fees, one per /22 etc).
Since it's actually the post-exhaustion /22 we're after why not do this:
The post-exhaustion /22 comes with a fee that is equivalent to the LIR fee. If a LIR contains one post-exhaustion /22, then this fee is waived.
Doesn't this just solve the problem everybody is arguing about? Now all of a sudden it's not cheap to get multiple /22s, and we don't care any more if people keep their LIRs open or not, it still costs the same.
We are always very careful with linking policy to charging. We tried that in the past and usually ran into some issues. If, however, the RIPE NCC would adapt the charging scheme in this way then it would probably make some policy proposals less relevant :) Cheers, Sander
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016, Sander Steffann wrote:
We are always very careful with linking policy to charging. We tried that in the past and usually ran into some issues. If, however, the RIPE NCC would adapt the charging scheme in this way then it would probably make some policy proposals less relevant :)
Ok, thanks for the clarification. I think this is however something that makes things a lot harder. It's like trying to do sports with your hands tied behind your back. Yes, you can probably get things done but it's a lot harder and usually results in a lot more work. Well, can't we at least take that idea to the current policy proposals, that we don't talk about "LIRs who have received a post-exhaustion /22" but instead talking about "LIRs containing..." What's happened in the past is less interesting than current situation? -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
On 21 Jun 2016, at 10:20, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
The post-exhaustion /22 comes with a fee that is equivalent to the LIR fee. If a LIR contains one post-exhaustion /22, then this fee is waived.
It’s up to the NCC membership to make decisions about fees, not this WG. FWIW, I think we’re doomed to debate policy proposals on IPv4, none of which reach consensus, until the NCC’s address pool is gone. Some of those debates may well continue long after that point. :-(
participants (4)
-
Jim Reid -
Mikael Abrahamsson -
Radu Gheorghiu -
Sander Steffann