Am 06.02.2019 um 13:46 schrieb [email protected]: >> >> and then you were presented with the simple flag, "250 GB sufficient: yes/no" >> >> What would you choose? >> >> My bet is that you would choose "no" and request 1 TB. > > Slight difference: we're talking about a scarce resource here, which - > depending on your choice - might or might not be available. So the choice is > rather: > > 1) packs of 250GB, 500GB or 1TB up to a total of 1TB (packs might not be > available at the same time) > 2) 1TB in on pack of 1TB
That's one thing. The other: what's the amount of recovered space becoming available for redistribution by the RIPE NCC within which timeframe? I've read in some document that RIRs might receive a tenth of IANA's recovered space every 6 months, thus the inital waiting time for a /22 or /24 will be up to 6 months anyway? If e. g. IANA is down to a /17, this makes a /21 for RIPE for that six month period. I'd rather hand that /21 as two /22 to two new LIRs instead of eight /24 to eight new LIRs, since a /24 is basically useless anyway. Especially if you have to wait 6 or more months for it. (Of course, /22 (in up to /24 slices) will mean a much longer waiting time, which makes IPv6 just more interessting. Or IPv4 brokers.) > Though, thinking about the billing, RIPE has to (or should) define how to do > the billing based on the number of resources ... currently, billing is per > resource, not sure if this will be kept if due to availability issues this > would remain (in essence, increasing the price for LIRs that have to take > multiple /24 instead of one /22) or whether they would still receive their > initial fragmented /22 amount of IPs included as "first resource" ... IIRC, billing discussions are out of scope for the APWG. Besides, billing is not per resource currently, is it? Regards, -kai
