[members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
sdy at a-n-t.ru
sdy at a-n-t.ru
Sat Apr 20 12:02:41 CEST 2024
I'am agree with it! > Hi Sebastien, > > I think IPv6 allocations larger than /29 aren't very common. Your proposal > again puts too much load on smaller LIRs. I strongly prefer the several > proposed linear models like: > > - 0.01 to 0.1 EUR per IPv4/32 (multiple proposals) > - 7.92 EUR per IPv4/24 (my proposal of 2024-04-12 => Neutral to current > RIPE NCC budget) > - 20 EUR per IPv4/24 for the first 1750 /24 (James A.T. Rice's proposal of > 2024-04-19) > > @RIPE: I would like to see at least one of the above models to choose > from. > > @Sebastien: Your proposal is by FAR the most expensive for smaller LIRs: > Your Cost for the smaller LIRs following the proposed parameters: > 1st /24: free > 1st /23: 217 (EUR 109 per /24) > 1st /22: 501 (EUR 125 per /24) > 1st /21: 873 (EUR 108 per /24) > 1st /20: 1361 (EUR 85 per /24) > 1st /19: 2000 (EUR 62 per /24) > 1st /18: 2837 (EUR 44 per /24) > > > Regards, > > Claudius > > > -- > Kantonsschule Zug/AS34288 > Claudius Zingerli, Dr. sc. ETH Zürich > Technischer Leiter Informatik, NOC > Luessiweg 24 > 6300 Zug > Switzerland > claudius.zingerli at ksz.ch > Tel: +41 41 728 1212 > Direkt: +41 41 728 1307 > > > On 20.04.24 10:32, Sebastien Brossier wrote: >> On 16/04/2024 16:37, Mihail Fedorov wrote: >>> I once again advise to put less charges on IPv6. Genrally it’s a good >>> and correct approach. But in current reality this will result need to >>> restructure v6 subnets for everyone, who opted into /29 but using /32 >>> (which is what many small LIRs do) and create additional work for >>> everyone. In some distant future there will be no difference but for >>> now every occasion to motivate networks to have IPv6 should be valued. >>> >>> Apart from that that’s the scheme I would be happy to vote for. >> >> Finally found some time to test some variants. >> Alternative parameters, where you can have up to /29 IPv6 at base fee >> (same total budget): >> >> Base_Fee = 700 EUR >> Bit_Factor = 1.31 >> Minimum_Fee = Base_Fee >> Offset_IPv4 = 8 >> Offset_IPv6 = 27 >> >> No allocations: 700 EUR >> IPv4 /24 and/or IPv6 /29: 700 EUR >> IPv4 /23 and/or IPv6 /28: 917 EUR >> IPv4 /22 and/or IPv6 /27: 1201 EUR >> IPv4 /21 and/or IPv6 /26: 1573 EUR >> IPv4 /20 and/or IPv6 /25: 2061 EUR >> IPv4 /19 and/or IPv6 /24: 2700 EUR >> IPv4 /18 and/or IPv6 /23: 3537 EUR >> IPv4 /17 and/or IPv6 /22: 4634 EUR >> IPv4 /16 and/or IPv6 /21: 6071 EUR >> IPv4 /15 and/or IPv6 /20: 7953 EUR >> IPv4 /14 and/or IPv6 /19: 10418 EUR >> IPv4 /13 and/or IPv6 /18: 13648 EUR >> IPv4 /12 and/or IPv6 /17: 17879 EUR >> IPv4 /11 and/or IPv6 /16: 23422 EUR >> IPv4 /10 and/or IPv6 /15: 30682 EUR >> IPv4 /9 and/or IPv6 /14: 40194 EUR >> IPv4 /8 and/or IPv6 /13: 52654 EUR >> Largest LIR: 65143 EUR >> >> >> Sebastien Brossier >> >> _______________________________________________ >> members-discuss mailing list >> members-discuss at ripe.net >> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss >> Unsubscribe: >> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/claudius.zingerli%40ksz.ch > > > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss at ripe.net > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/sdy%40a-n-t.ru > ----------------------------- Serbulov Dmitry
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]