* Marco Schmidt
The RIPE NCC has always charged an assignment for any that is made in
a single day. The idea here is not to negatively affect anyone for a
decision made by the RIPE NCC or for other factors that might result
in them receiving multiple prefixes based on a single request.
For example, if somebody asks for a /44 IPv6 PI (equals 16x /48) but
only qualifies for 5 /48's - it wouldn't be fair to charge them five
times more than for one single block. Similarly, if somebody transfers
part of their IPv4 PI, maybe a /24 out of a /22, this will leave them
with two prefixes (/23 and /24) and potentially a double charge. Of
course, guidance on how we interpret policy is always welcome from the
community.
Hi Marco,
So let me see if I understand correctly:
Assume organisation A requested and received, say, three separate /48
assignments to be used in three different sites on the same day / in the
same ticket, then they will only pay a single PI fee annually in perpetuity?
At the same time, assume organisation B also requested and received
three separate /48s to be used in three different sites, but did so in
three different tickets submitted over three consecutive days, then they
will need to pay three PI fees annually in perpetuity?
To be clear I am not talking about a single /46 assignment for a single
gigantic site (or collection of sites with uniform routing requirements)
here, but three distinct /48s given to be used in different sites with
different routing requirements.
It is also worth noting that handling End Users for PI assignments and
ASNs is an ongoing workload when it comes to keeping the Registry up
to date and also with regards to sanctions.
Certainly, and I bet that is one of the reasons for having an annual fee
in the first place. However I do not see how this could explain the
different treatment between organisation A and B above.
I could see the rationale for giving A a one-time discount on the act of
issuing the PI prefixes themselves (assuming there is a one-time charge
for that), but I don't think I can see any reason to give organisation A
a discount on the yearly recurring fees in perpetuity. The on-going
maintenance for A and B's prefixes in the years following their issuance
should after all be identical, and both A and B ought to have the same
economic incentives to return any prefixes that fall into disuse.
Tore
-----
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options,
please visit:
https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/address-policy-wg.ripe.net/
As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings.
More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
