Re: [ncc-services-wg] Feature request
Well, you are not supposed to sell/rent addresses, with the exception of covering the administrative overhead. Which should be close to NIL if you do not want to take care of that block (LIR-wise). So a simple approach would be to hand out the addresses only after a reasonable once-off fee for obtaining them has been paid.
Heh... /22 PI is scored like 4 (FOUR) PA /20 block usually got by LIR at the beginning (but, of course, once). So I don't think it is "close to NIL". Often it is too expensive, especially in eastern Europe, especially to non-profit organization. So it is good to split payment for a chunks, not bill them once. Anyway, is there the deny to bill PI/AS on regular basis (not once)? Where?
Which agreements? As long as you provide connectivity to them, this is an ISP operational issue. If they don't pay for those services they get locked/cut. Then the holder of PI is free (by definition) to find another provider. end story.
If I am their service provider (btw, then they got PA) - I can cut their service. And if not?
Boring, yes, but I thought you want to see an on-going flow of money ;-) What for? Where's the user friendlyness?
So RIPE gives me a policy how to deal with my clients? ;) If yes, please show me the documents. If not - let me do that, and be LIR-friendly ;)
There should be a local legal envirnment available to enforce (resonable) contracts.
Yes. But, unfortunally, contracts sometimes violates, so I ask about technical resources to have users to be correct. -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)
Max Tulyev wrote:
Well, you are not supposed to sell/rent addresses, with the exception of covering the administrative overhead. Which should be close to NIL if you do not want to take care of that block (LIR-wise). So a simple approach would be to hand out the addresses only after a reasonable once-off fee for obtaining them has been paid.
Heh... /22 PI is scored like 4 (FOUR) PA /20 block usually got by LIR at the beginning (but, of course, once).
I presume that is either the "non-aggregation penalty", or the penalty for the additional overhead at the RIR (as they have to be involved in each assignment transaction), or for both.
So I don't think it is "close to NIL".
I tried to say that the _administrative overhead_ would be close to NIL if you do not want to help in maintaining the registry data. Otoh, given that fee structure it might be cheaper (for a certain block-size or larger) to establish a separate extra small LIR to get big PI blocks (which PA-blocks essentially are). With the benefit that the resposibility is clearly set.
Often it is too expensive, especially in eastern Europe, especially to non-profit organization. So it is good to split payment for a chunks, not bill them once.
Anyway, is there the deny to bill PI/AS on regular basis (not once)? Where?
No, and I didn't think I said that?
Which agreements? As long as you provide connectivity to them, this is an ISP operational issue. If they don't pay for those services they get locked/cut. Then the holder of PI is free (by definition) to find another provider. end story.
If I am their service provider (btw, then they got PA) - I can cut their service. And if not?
If you are not, then your options are different, of course, and probably the motivation to provide the service, or not. And if you try to run it as a national or regional service, then it sounds very much like the concept of the "last resort registry" which was abandoned many years ago, as it was considered counterproductive to the aggregation goal.
Boring, yes, but I thought you want to see an on-going flow of money ;-) What for? Where's the user friendlyness?
So RIPE gives me a policy how to deal with my clients? ;)
No, RIPE gives you a set of guidelines how to handle address space requests, and how much and when you have to pay to the RIR for the services you receive from the RIR.
If yes, please show me the documents. If not - let me do that, and be LIR-friendly ;)
Don't be offended, but it starts to smell like a request for a free, or at least cheaper, ride than the rest of the gang: - when you assign PI on a regular basis for entities that are not your service customers, then that probably hurts the rest of the community by lack of aggregation, - when you argue in favour of keeping the money coming in regularly (more than to cover the cost of your _administrative overhead_ plus the penalty for your size category), but you don't want to be responsible any longer and/or be involved with registry data maintainance foe me this starts to smell like selling or renting out address space,
There should be a local legal envirnment available to enforce (resonable) contracts.
Yes. But, unfortunally, contracts sometimes violates, so I ask about technical resources to have users to be correct.
- and you implictely ask for the whole community to spend money on providing technical resources to help you in managing the contracts with your customers. Again, you are more than welcome to come forward with a proposal (see ripe-350), and if the community can agree on the usefulness of your requirement(s) or proposal then we should be able to help. Btw, I started to think about a potential *technical* approach to achieve what you seem to request: because you might have a _slightly_ better point with regard to AS numbers than for PI address space management. But I need a bit more time to make up my own *technical* mind. But don't hold your breath, come forward with a set of requirements, at least. Ideas regarding implementation and expected impact on logistics and DB operations would of course be even better. Regards, Wilfried.
Heh... /22 PI is scored like 4 (FOUR) PA /20 block usually got by LIR at the beginning (but, of course, once). I presume that is either the "non-aggregation penalty", or the penalty for the additional overhead at the RIR (as they have to be involved in each assignment transaction), or for both.
So I don't think it is "close to NIL".
I tried to say that the _administrative overhead_ would be close to NIL if you do not want to help in maintaining the registry data.
Yes, my administrative overhead in fact is an hour or two of working with the request and user (I really afraid to scare hostmasters by sending forms I got from users ;) ). But scoring LIR gets for such requests is really the money. So I have to get it from my customers.
Otoh, given that fee structure it might be cheaper (for a certain block-size or larger) to establish a separate extra small LIR to get big PI blocks (which PA-blocks essentially are). With the benefit that the resposibility is clearly set.
No. It isn't cheaper. LIR costs near 3000EUR (PI assignments here costs from a box of beer ;) up to 1000 EUR), and there is quarterly (yearly) payments. LIR needs to be administrated. LIR needs A LOT of paperwork (thanks to community, in Russia there is special agreement, but in other ex-USSR countries don't).
Anyway, is there the deny to bill PI/AS on regular basis (not once)? Where? No, and I didn't think I said that?
No. But as I understood, you try to say that PI/AS billing on regular (or chunked) basis is bad. So I want to understand is there just your point of view or there is some documents about it.
If you are not, then your options are different, of course, and probably the motivation to provide the service, or not. And if you try to run it as a national or regional service, then it sounds very much like the concept of the "last resort registry" which was abandoned many years ago, as it was considered counterproductive to the aggregation goal.
Other goal is consumption ;) If small ISP really needs /24 assignment, but they have to be LIR and get /20 allocation - is it good?
Don't be offended, but it starts to smell like a request for a free, or at least cheaper, ride than the rest of the gang: - when you assign PI on a regular basis for entities that are not your service customers, then that probably hurts the rest of the community by lack of aggregation,
I assign PI to these who needs it. So their presence hurts community, not me ;) Again, think about consumption.
- when you argue in favour of keeping the money coming in regularly (more than to cover the cost of your _administrative overhead_ plus the penalty for your size category), but you don't want to be responsible any longer and/or be involved with registry data maintainance foe me this starts to smell like selling or renting out address space,
Even if it is one payment chunked for example on 12 monthly payments?
- and you implictely ask for the whole community to spend money on providing technical resources to help you in managing the contracts with your customers.
Not only me. There is a question really. And as contract violations is a rare case, may be it doesn't need any technical improvements into the RIPE DB. Maybe letter to hostmaster will be enough? -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)
Hi, On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 08:27:40PM +0400, Max Tulyev wrote:
If I am their service provider (btw, then they got PA) - I can cut their service. And if not?
The whole point about "PI" networks is that they are owned by the *end customer*, and not by the provider. As soon as you (as LIR) have requested&received it for your customer, it belongs to your customer. End of story. No way to take it back (as long as all facts stated in the request are still valid).
Boring, yes, but I thought you want to see an on-going flow of money ;-) What for? Where's the user friendlyness?
So RIPE gives me a policy how to deal with my clients? ;)
Don't assign PI space if do not want your customers to be able to just take it away if they are unhappy with you. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71007 (66629) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234
participants (3)
-
Gert Doering -
Max Tulyev -
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet