On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Brandon Butterworth <brandon@bogons.net> wrote:

On Sun Jul 24, 2016 at 08:27:38AM +0200, Prager-IT e.U. wrote:
> Membership fee after we have switched to a per /24 system: 8,23 Euros per
> /24 per Year
>
> Therefore it is quite clear that we need to change the charging scheme via
> majority vote to a per /24 system as supported by the numbers above.

With membership fee based on number of /24 then members may decide
to also get one vote per /24. Would they vote for this scheme (do
they get their N*/24 votes before or after this vote...)

I don't understand what you are trying to say, each entity has one vote even if they have multiple LIR accounts under the same entity.

The aim is for some smaller members (like us, so we'd win) to shift
the balance of cost to larger members? That sounds fine, however the
fees are hardly huge and if they can't afford them it sounds like
the business case for having a LIR is marginal, they'd be better
off money wise and dfz table size using an upstreams space.

We are not shifting any costs, we are just asking each member to pay their fair share for the amount of resources they are using. I am just calculating in terms of /24s as that is easiest to calculate to base the membership fee of. For example if you hold one /22 you will be charged, 4*8,23 Euros, 32,92 Euros per Year as you hold four /24s in size in total.

8,23 Euros per year per 256 IPv4 addresses is hardly a business case breaking amount of money. These changes will also bring a very real cost to super large LIRs that hold a ton of resources and may finally spark some meaningful IPv6 adoption.

If the aim is to make it cheap enough they can go crazy taking
extra LIRs to get /22s then don't bother, that scheme was to
moderate demand and there'd likely be other measures introduced
to preserve that

brandon

I don't understand what you are trying to say.