RE: IPv6 fee for NIR members

["Á¨Ψk" <hsieh@twnic.net.tw>]

Hi Izumi and Yong Wong,

Thank JPNIC for the proposal.

TWNIC also feels US$1,966 per allocation is a bit too high.
We support JPNIC's proposal and hope APNIC can reconsider about the costs to NIRs.
As IPv6 minimum allocation adjusted from /35 to /32, the fee structure should be modified 
accordingly.


Thank you.

Chianan@TWNIC


> Hi, Izumi
> 
> I agree with JPNIC's opinion based on our situation similar with JPNIC. 
> Please, could APNIC consider our NIR's restrictions on budget plan ?
> 
> Yong Wan Ju
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nir-discuss@lists.apnic.net [mailto:owner-nir-discuss@lists.apnic.net]On 
Behalf Of Izumi Okutani
> Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 11:53 AM
> To: nir-discuss@apnic.net
> Subject: IPv6 fee for NIR members
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> 
> As you know, NIRs are paying per address fee for IPv6 allocations on
> /48 basis. We are currently paying US$246(US$0.03*8192) to APNIC per
> /35 allocation.
> 
> When the allocation size increases to /32 in the new policy, we must
> pay US$1,966(0.03*65536) per allocation.
>  
>  Note: To make it simple, we are assuming that there is no change in
>        membership category
> 
> Unlike IPv4, we are charging our members per IPv6 allocation request,
> and since this could lead to a substantial fee increase for our
> members, we are hoping to maintain the same fee if possible.
> 
> Could APNIC consider maintaining the same fee even after /32, just
> like the way you have reviewed the membership fee for other APNIC
> members?
> 
> This can be probably be realised if you calculate per address fee on
> /45 basis and not /48. Please let us know what you think.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Izumi
> JPNIC
> 
> 

Chia-Nan Hsieh
IP Analyst and Policy Coordinator
Internet Resource Services Department, TWNIC