-----Original Message----- From: Potapov Vladislav Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 12:27 PM To: 'Nigel Titley' Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Clarification re proposed Charging Scheme 2012 Nigel, Yes, LIR can charge the end user for this service, but the artificial "protection" measures have led to strange "side effects", which I'll try to explain in the real numbers of one of the LIRs I administer: What the LIR has: PA: 1x /19 AS: 1 Client PI: 1x /23 Client AS: 1 As you can see - nothing special and abusive? But let's think about that once more: - according to the PA allocation and LIRs ASN I'd pay in 2012: Category=M, >20 but <=19 IPv4, >8 but <=16 ASN = 2000 euro + 50 euro (1 ASN)= 2050 euro - serving the client's resources in addition: Category=L, >19 but <=16 IPv4, >16 but <=32 ASN = 3000 euro + 150 euro (2 ASN + PI)= 3150 euro So the "protective measures" costs the LIR legally serving only [1 PI assignment with ASN] additional 1100 euro or 550 euro for a "independent resource". Is it fair? How could the LIR count how much the client should pay for the resources if every year RIPE NCC invents new charging scheme with such huge deviations? IF (I pointed out once more - IF) the scheme should be voted - it MUST have some "independent resources margin" like it has about ASNs, but not pile up all addresses chunks. I should clarify my position about the three supporting documents listed in the GM 2011 agenda. - I'm not against rising budget, but the rise should be clearly explained. In this case the Activity Plan should have all the necessary cost values, the Budget - clear explanation what the additional expenses will go, Charging Scheme should be stable to be able to predict LIRs expenses. (Side note: if a company due to a very good business plan has unnecessary 1k-2k euro to pay for bad work of financial department of RIPE NCC, it could as well send the money to me - I'm very welcomed this motion. :) ). - The proposed Charging Scheme has not achieved declared goal - simplicity and in my opinion became even more tough to understand and have many dishonest issues. Then for the 2012 the Charging Scheme should be saved from 2011. Regards, Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss- bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nigel Titley Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 9:52 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Clarification re proposed Charging Scheme 2012
On 12/10/2011 18:48, Sascha Luck wrote:
Hi Jochem,
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 07:35:38PM +0200, Jochem de Ruig wrote:
For example, if a /18 is requested and would put an LIR into a larger category, if we did not take the PI resource into account for the categorisation, requesting a /18 of PI space would be beneficial over a requesting a /18 of PA space. Right, this makes kind of sense for PI space assigned to the requesting LIR. What about space requested on behalf of end users - the LIR does not benefit from the use of this space, in fact after 2007-01 it merely handles the request on behalf of the end user and the NCC.
The LIR is free to charge the end user for this service, surely? Or am I confused?
Nigel
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.