On 14 Jan 2025, at 10:45, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Assuming that IPv4 will make you happy is a stockholm syndrome.
Hi, James, writing from Stockholm, here. No matter how much we may wish otherwise, my customers can't survive without any IPv4 connectivity. They can (and some do, despite my best efforts to encourage otherwise) survive without any IPv6 connectivity. Any attempts to include IPv6 in the charging scheme is going to be both counterproductive to the deployment of IPv6, and also pointless, since there is not currently an IPv6 scarcity. Do I need to start planning handing back some of the /29 that was the minimum allocation at the time because it's going to increase my charges from RIPE? Also, +1 to Brandon's comments earlier. Categories are just a quantised proportional charging scheme. If you must go down this route, make sure you have lots of categories to minimise the pain to members at the edge of their category. I'd strongly prefer: A) A category-less scheme with charges proportional to the resources taken. You can add ceilings to satisfy any constraints such as the likes of dtag not paying as much per IP as the rest of us. B) Not overcomplicating it with logarithmic functions, not matter how beautiful they are. Keep it simple and use a linear (price per /24) with a ceiling. Best wishes James Rice Jump Networks Ltd