Hi all,
Commenting on the size distribution of LIRs and the consequence for the charging model:
On 13 Apr 2023, at 16:51, Ondrej Zajicek <santiago@crfreenet.org> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 04:16:42PM +0000, Kaj Niemi wrote:
Hi,
Well. It’s slightly different but…. I think the real issue at hand is still that topline is made to fit the projected – the word “intended” comes to mind – budget.
A "normal" LIR, which I would imagine there are many of amongst the membership, with:
* an IPv4 /21 assigned 20-ish years ago
* an IPv4 /22 assigned from 185/8
* one ASN
* one IPv6 /32 assigned 20-ish years ago because they truly believed IPv6 is superior in all aspects and everyone would rush to deploy it immediately
Hi
According to data from Appendix 1 of Model A charging scheme, there is
only 9.5 % of such 'normal' LIRs, while 46.7 % LIRs has just one /22,
My bet is that a large portion of these 46,7% became LIR with the sole purpose of obtaining that single /22 for later monetisation. These LIRs will fade away over time as they sell their IPs or merge.
Certainly not all are in this case; we do see a number of enterprises going the LIR route to become multihomed with own IP addresses.
so it is clearly advantageous variant for median LIR (as 6.2 % LIRs
has just one /23).
So my image of 'normal' LIR is someone who did not bother to become LIR
in the past, just used LIR services of its upstream, but when noticed
that it cannot get more addresses that way anymore, it becomes LIR
itself.
Largest number is not the same as normal. LIR’s actually using their IP space is closer to my definition of normal as in “expected behaviour”.
Cheers
Michel LANNERS
CIO at LU-CIX Management G.I.E.
--
Phone: (+352) 28 99 29 92-81
LU-CIX Management G.I.E.
202, Z.A.E. Wolser F
L-3290 Bettembourg