Am 05.10.2011 15:10, schrieb LeaderTelecom Ltd.:
Dear Michie,
Great IDEA!
Err... Great idea... or is it? Really, cui bono? This scheme has been proposed numerous times, IIRC even in this very discussion. In my perception, Small LIRs will not really profit from it, as they typically have a small network (1 or 2 allocations, 1 ASN, X-SMALL category). They'll pay roughly the same because the annual membership fee will have to be adjusted to account for the losses accrued by your idea. Medium LIRs might pay slightly less, I guess... There's probably a sweet spot somewhere (and I'll assume you calculated it so you're in it ;) ). Big LIRs however, with their multiple 12's, large AS sets and network allocations would probably pay drastically less than before. This would shift the weight off those who massively profit from the resources administrated by RIPE NCC onto those who take up less resources. I don't consider this to be very fair. On the contrary: Those who use up large portions of the address space should damn well pay large portions of the NCC's bills. In addition, charging per resource allocation, be it one address or 65K, looks like "per address" charging to the tax authorities. And this is specifically what RIPE is looking to avoid. Gruß, --ck PS: To the colleagues at Telekom and PrivateLayer: GET YOUR DAMN TICKET SYSTEMS OFF THIS LIST! -- Filoo GmbH Christopher Kunz, Geschäftsführer Web: http://www.filoo.de/ E-Mail: chris@filoo.de Tel.: (+49) 0 52 48 / 1 89 84 -11 Fax: (+49) 0 52 48 / 1 89 84 -20 Please sign & encrypt mail wherever possible, my key: C882 8ED1 7DD1 9011 C088 EA50 5CFA 2EEB 397A CAC1 [Achtung, neue Firmenadresse!] Moltkestraße 25a 33330 Gütersloh HRB4355, AG Gütersloh Geschäftsführer: S.Grewing, J.Rehpöhler, C.Kunz Folgen Sie uns auf Twitter: http://twitter.com/filoogmbh