[address-policy-wg] another way to achieve the original motives of post-exhaustion policy
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] another way to achieve the original motives of post-exhaustion policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] another way to achieve the original motives of post-exhaustion policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Radu Gheorghiu
radu at pengooin.net
Tue Jun 21 11:28:44 CEST 2016
Hello, I think this was discussed during the last RIPE meeting and it was rejected by Nigel due to not being "legal" to raise fees like this. Regards, Radu On 06/21/2016 12:20 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > > I just had a thought. > > What we're trying to do is to make sure there are IPv4 addresses > available to new entrants. We're trying to do this by making a LIR get > one post-exhaustion /22 each. The LIR fee is the limiting factor in > trying to stop people from getting many /22:s. People have been trying > to game this, by getting /22 and closing the LIR, thus avoiding the > LIR fee. Changes in the policy has been all about trying to limit > transfers etc, setting policy from what should happen with /22s, > stopping transfers (so people still have to pay LIR fees, one per /22 > etc). > > Since it's actually the post-exhaustion /22 we're after why not do this: > > The post-exhaustion /22 comes with a fee that is equivalent to the LIR > fee. If a LIR contains one post-exhaustion /22, then this fee is waived. > > Doesn't this just solve the problem everybody is arguing about? Now > all of a sudden it's not cheap to get multiple /22s, and we don't care > any more if people keep their LIRs open or not, it still costs the same. >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] another way to achieve the original motives of post-exhaustion policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] another way to achieve the original motives of post-exhaustion policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]