On 04/08/2011 10:39, Simon Lockhart wrote:
For example, here's another pricing model which could work (prices completely made up on the spot, so don't judge fairness on the numbers I use):
Membership Fee (per year): EUR 1000
Per allocation costs: First Year Subsequent Years IPv4 (up to /22): EUR 100 EUR 50 IPv4 (/21 to /20): EUR 200 EUR 50 IPv4 (/19 to /16): EUR 400 EUR 100 IPv4 (/15 to /12): EUR 800 EUR 100 IPv4 (over /12): EUR 1500 EUR 200
IPv6 (/32): EUR 100 EUR 50 IPv6 (Over /32): EUR 400 EUR 50
ASN: EUR 100 EUR 50
Other objects: EUR 400 EUR 50
In here, the membership fee is designed to cover all the other RIPE services - Atlas, Labs, Meetings, etc, etc. There is of course the option to have a "Membership Lite" at a reduced rate with restrictions (only one IPv4, one IPv6 and one ASN allocation, no access to other services or RIPE meetings).
I think a "usage-membership-fee" would be much better as a "fix-based-fee" because in relation to a LIR in Medium category and one in high one the smaller LIRs will be a lot more than he will use. I guess a "usage" depending on the resouces who will be used is much better because it should not be that a big company which have 100times more IP addresses will pay only the double price as a other LIR in a smaller category. So the fairnest way is to say - fixed membership fee (based on meetings, personal costs, etc.) and a resouce usage fee (based on IPv4 and IPv6 addresses). /19 = 8160 IP - so like 1 IP for 0,01 = 81,6 Euro, if one has a /16 hee will pay 65025 IP = 650,25 Euro and so on. Only a fee which will reflect the resources will be fine because otherwise each bigger LIR will not be carefull with IPv4 addresses and will order even more because the cost will be the same. bye alex