> Has a schema like this ever been considered or voted upon ?

No. While in this case could of small LIRs can increase rapidly. Each LIR has for now free trainings and etc. 
So price for small LIRs for each IP should be higher. For big LIRs - smaller.

-- 
Alexey Ivanov
LeaderTelecom Ltd.


14.07.2012 18:45 - Andrea Cocito написал(а):
Hello all,

after all the discussions I cannot understand what the problem would  
be with a scheme like the following:

a) Member LIRs are divided into 16 categories, named /5, /6, /7, .. /
20, /21
b) Your category is the smallest route that could contain the total  
IPv4 allocated space of your LIR
c) Your fee in euro is T/2^C, where C is your category and T the total  
RIPENCC costs.

Seems simple and fair, it is still a category based model and thus it  
does not change the tax status of RIPE, and in example:
- Up to 2048 IP addresses you are class /21 and pay about 100 euro
- Up to 4096 IP addresses you are class /20 and pay about 200 euro
- Up to 8192 IP addresses you are class /19 and pay about 400 euro
- Up to 16384 IP addresses you are class /18 and pay about 800 euro
- Up to 32768 IP addresses you are class /17 and pay about 1600 euro
- Up to 65535 IP addresses you are class /16 and pay about 3200 euro
... and so on.

Some corrections improvements might be considered to take in other  
exhaustable resources (IPv6 address space, ASn) and even to some  
extent non-exhaustable ones (number of tickets per year, number of  
records or operations in the database).

Has a schema like this ever been considered or voted upon ?

Regards,

A.



----
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.