[members-discuss] Response from Board on Charging Scheme Comments

On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 17:33:37 +0300
Mihail Fedorov <mihail at fedorov.net> wrote:
> I advice only one change - removing size based price on IPv6 subnets
> - there is no lack of supply for them (and will never be) and
> everyone is advised to have /29 (or earlier /32). Making it pricy can
> demotivate LIR from owning v6 while we need opposite. It’s better for
> everyone to keep it free or with some low flat fee.
> 
> That’s my personal opinion, but if someone thinks IPv6 should be in
> the same scheme - I’m ok with that as well.

If then the unlikely event, everybody switches to IPv6, happens then
we will have the same problem again. Only with no shortage of resources.

We still need a way to covers RIPE NCCs expenses.

So, if this path is chosen we need to price IPv6. But you could say that
the fee is then either for IPv4 or IPv6 usage. The one with the highest
price is used.

btw. The assumption that having small allocations means you are a small
company is wrong. I can find several LIRs with very modest allocations
that could, with out noticing on their budget, cover all RIPE NCC expenses
by them self.  

/Martin