Hello, On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 22:35:16 +0200, Daniel Suchy wrote:
Hello, can someone from RIPE NCC provide calculation similat to current charging scheme (expected numbers of LIR members per category) and number of affected LIRs with the change. I expect these numbers already exists in RIPE NCC and these was used for this proposal - there must be some source data for selecting member category based on IPv4 callocations size in presented document. And these data should be presented together with this proposar.
+1
I'm supporting this kind of simplification of LIR size calculation, but personally I feel that IPv4 allocations per category should be changed. There's disproportion between number of addresses and category - organisations holding for example one milion addresses will pay only double price, compared to organizations holding 65 thousand addresses, even is holding much more of resourcess. In terms of fairness - large resource holders are favorized opposed to small ones. I think, allocations per category should be considered to be more fair (that's means up to /22 in XXS, /21 in XS, /20-/16 in S, /15-/12 in L category... for example). My current feeling from presented model is, that many currently small LIRs will fall to medium category, just due to this change. And, current minimal allocation for LIR is /21 [*ripe509, section 5.1] - that means, every new LIR will be automatically in small category (and new LIRs will pay more then) - and that's wrong in my eyes.
As Daniel, I like this kind of simplification of LIR size calculation. But I am XS, and I think I will go Small or Medium... (depending of the way it is calculated). Does the LIR size is calculated according to ripe allocation (e.g. if we have a /21 allocated, but on the real life there is only about /23 used) is based only about what is allocated or just the block given by RIPE ?
Also, current model of 50EUR per independent resource is quite clear I think it can remain in the new charging scheme. At least, proposed model two, where PI are charged I'm supporting. There should be some regulation represented by additional "fee" for PI resources, as these are sometimes misused by organisations expected to be a LIR (and there're some organisations/LIRs activelly selling PI address space as their "service", charging much more [more than double] than they pay for the resource in RIPE).
I second that, but other problem is limitation of number of AS. WTF if we have 5 AS and one /21 ? Do we go automatically from Small to Medium ? Since AS _IS_ independent resources, why there is limitation there ? Kind regards, Xavier